TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

marcop83 wrote: ..We can ask Dr Lemperle

If you read the two papers posted he recommends very early detection and treatment.

It seems then it comes down to how painful they are and how big they are. I had two lymph noduels that were coffee bean size, but again, they were actually pretty hard to detect. Even when parts of my scaffold hadn\'t dissolved, no one would have noticed other than me. But my fats lumps were noticeable, as they were very soft and there was a real contrast between the feel of Erect penile tissue and soft fat.

Has anyone come across any pictures of large size granulomas? Just how big can these things potentially become? I saw a photo of a woman who had huge lumps in her butt, but she\'d had over 600cc of the stuff.

I hope I haven\'t given the impression that granulomma\'s aren\'t a big deal, as if you get one, then I\'m sure you\'ll disagree. My point is that from reading those articles, it seems that my biggest fear and essentially what is holding me back from committing to this procedure (if I get my penis back to a condition worth considering more enhancement), which is that granulomas would mean the PMMA has to be removed, might not be the case. I\'d assumed that if one had a granuloma it would lead to break down of the skin etc and make Removal a necessity, if they didn\'t respond to steroid treatment. However, it seems as if, one could just leave the granuloma and not suffer any issue\'s other than aesthetic and perhaps some soreness. From this point of view, it makes them no worse the fat lumps.

I can tell you from experience that it\'s not nice to have lumps of fat in your penis, but I can also tell you, again from experience, that having them removed probably isn\'t worth it, as the surgery is tricky and risky. I\'ve essentially replaced the lumps of fat with scar tissue that restricts the length, causes mild peryonies desease and prevents movement of the shaft skin in certain places. Removing PMMA would be even harder and would probably be much riskier, hence my main concern is ending up in a position when I would have to have it removed. But it seems that isn\'t the case. So whilst a granuloma that doesn\'t respond to steroid treatment is a big deal, in that it will cause aesthetic issues, it perhaps isn\'t the end of the world, as I had previously assumed.

reading those articles it seems that that FBG is not a big deal as it responded well to conservatice treatment and it is believed to be self resolving with time.
PMMA seems indeed the best solution for Girth enanchement with the less sides.

Does anyone know if systemic reaction like those experienced in silicone \"leaks\" cases are possible with PMMA?

@Zmann
That\'s a relevant comment. I recall another member here (smartman?) telling us that there are guys in Brazil that pay to have granules embedded in their penises for their aphrodisiac effect during intercourse. Will we be seeing requests for granula forming PMMA concentrations as a last layer with Dr C? Kinda kiddin\' here of course, but it is to put into perspective the gravity of this problem if it is of no serious medical consequence. Sure a lump or two are best avoided and one can get hung up over it, but not having ever seen one (god forbid I get any after saying this lol) it doesn\'t seem as serious as migration or infection. JMHO
HC

Two key articles on granulomas authored by Dr. Lemperle. Please, take a look, as they are very informative.

Thanks for the links Supa! Looking forward to finding some time to thoroughly review these articles, the \"G\" word is of considerable importance to many on this forum that\'s for sure!

From reading those articles, it seems that if one wanted they could just accept the granulomas and not suffer any health risks because of them. My biggest concern with PMMA has always been that it might have to be removed and then there is a high risk of Necrosis leading to loss of the shaft skin, which would be uttelry devestating. But if one can just leave the granulomas indefinitely, then why have surgery to remove them?

As someone who has experienced lumps in my penis from both fat and scar tissue I can tell you that it really isn\'t that terrible. I\'m not saying they didn\'t effect me, but that they are something one can live with and much less terrible complication than Necrosis. However, if they caused the penis skin to go red, as in some of those photo\'s then it would be a different story, as the penis would not be presentable and the skin would probably be sore. So, I\'m wondering if the redness only shows if the PMMA is injected into the skin as oppossed to below the fascia? My thinking is that if one has a red lump in the skin, it is going to visible, but if the red lump is below the skin, I\'m assuming the redness wont show through.

What I\'m saying about lumps in the penis not being that bad is hard to explain unless you\'ve actually experienced it. I\'ve currently got several lumps of thick scar tissue. I\'m assuming seeing as it\'s collagen it will feel similar to a granuloma. And to be honest, I have to feel around at times to even find it. Lastime posted the other day that his scar tissue feels like a leech stuck to the shaft of his penis. Mine is the same, but I seriously doubt anyone would be able to detect it unless they knew it was there. When I had fat lumps they were much more noticeable, but that was because the fat was soft and it contrasted with penis, makig it more obvious to touch. But I\'m assuming granulomas would be much firmer, like scar tissue. Dr C says he hasn\'t had any granulomas when injecting below the fascia, but I\'m now wondering if that is the case, or that his patients simply aren\'t aware they have developed granulomas. I guess much of this depends of the shape and size of the granuloma, but from my experiecne, many of those shown in the photos in Dr Lemperle\'s article, wouldn\'t be such a big deal in the penis and certainly not worth the risk of surgical Removal.

@hoddle

I can relate to your viewpoint: for me, if granulomas don\'t have to be removed and don\'t hurt, then I would not have problems with them having produced a few lumps here and there on the shaft.

There is a paper written by Dr. Almir Nacul (the father of pmma blunt micro-cannula bioplasty and Dr.C. learned from him this technique as far as I remember) he replied to Dr. Salles\'s paper about the 32 cases , he mentioned :-
He used PMMA since 1992, more than 5000 patients, he said in the last 6 years the rate of nodules and FBG is 0.01% for Newplastic (this statement is what we are looking for 0.01% FBG with an experienced doctor).
It is safer to use PMMA in the deeper plane than in the superficial ones ( this is another paper which mentioned injecting PMMA in a deeper plane is better than superficial plane).
In conclusion :- Newplastic has 0.01% a chance of FBG under an experienced doctor.
journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/fulltext/...methacrylate.79.aspx

i have a question that might be already covered int he old forum, if it is the case i apologize.
I was reading about injectable silicone and that many women that had it developed conditions such as: rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, severe joint and muscle pain, incapacitating fatigue, swollen lymph glands, skin problems, peripheral numbness, multiple allergies, headaches, hair loss, sunlight sensitivity, central nervous system disorders (similar to multiple sclerosis), and others.
Does PMMA can cause them aswell? or it is limited just to silicone ?

HoddleI can certainly see what you are saying. Since the shaft skin is independent of the fascia, and the PMMA is placed below the fascia, logically if a granuloma did develop, it should not affect the shaft skin.

I remember when I have asked Lemperle about Dr Daniel Cassuto\'s technique by using the laser (diode with 60-65C. heat) in treating FBG he was against treating FBG with either Laser or surgery thats what he said :-
\" Artecoll melts at 180 C. and liquefied at 300 C. - but then it will cool down and be the same... So, he creates heat Necrosis and presses this Necrosis out - and leaves a depression ! See picture 1.
It is a similar rough way like surgery - which I condemn in granuloma treatment: an immunological hyper-reaction has to be treated with a calm-down=reaction like with cortisone ! \"
Gottfried
Also as far as I remember the other reason also why to avoid surgery is :- the FBG has a finger-like extension so it will be difficult to remove it completely without excising more tissues around the FBG so by this way you will be more precise in removing it completely.

@hoddle10and @sparticus - that's why it is important to differentiate between lumps and granuloma. Note in table 3 of the initial Artefill 145 person study there were 10 cases of lumps distinct from the 2 cases of granulomas. Take a look at Carruthers (back to an Artefill supporter) 10 granuloma cases.

@ hoddle10 - I agree with what you mentioned about granulomas if its there and not a big deal then why not leave it be.

I feel like I\'m missing some research about granulomas here but can\'t seem to find it can someone fill me in more about them? From what I read most will go away over time if untreated anyways, if left untreated is there a possibility of it escalating to something worse, if so then what? Otherwise are people mainly getting them removed because where studied this issue is mainly on the face and its a aesthetics issue?