TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

hoddle10 wrote: 'But we want to know what will happen if treatment fails and one just leaves the granulomas alone. Will there be any health risks or just aesthetic issue\'s? ...

If you can tolerate the granuloma there does not appear to be any general health risk in not resolving them. There is some speculation around increasing the likelihood of autoimmune type systemic disease but at this point there is no data supporting such speculation. There is some speculation by Lemperle and Carruthers that the granulomas will spontaneously resolve in 3 to 5 years but at this point there is no data supporting such speculation.

eqstudent wrote: If you can tolerate the granuloma there does not appear to be any general health risk in not resolving them.

@eqstudent
I have been thinking about this a lot lately. To me, it is a question of what \"tolerate\" encompasses. Is there a chance of significant pain? Or is it just an odd bump here and there? Even it if were painful, would resolution occur in a few years?
For me personally, this is one of of my main concerns and I am going to try to research this.
@hoddle
Did you get any responses on realself?

hoddle10 wrote: I think so seeing as it\'s been mentioned that if left alone that can resolve themselves upto to 5 years later. But that\'s things I want to be sure of. If they don\'t damage the surrounding tissue, which I\'d previously assumed they would and they aren\'t infectious, then I can\'t see why there would be health risks and can see why they can be left untreated.

Occam\'s razor: we compile a list of plastic surgeons and call/email them on this specific question

marcop83 wrote: @hoddle

i was saying not big deal in terms that for what i understood dosen\'t cause any health risk if left untreated.
Is correct assuming that no health risk can develop form untreated FBG?

I think so seeing as it\'s been mentioned that if left alone that can resolve themselves upto to 5 years later. But that\'s things I want to be sure of. If they don\'t damage the surrounding tissue, which I\'d previously assumed they would and they aren\'t infectious, then I can\'t see why there would be health risks and can see why they can be left untreated.

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?

@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

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?

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.

eqstudent wrote: @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.

That\'s not quite what I\'m getting at. I guess what I\'m saying is that if it occurs at a deeper level, such as under the Dartos fascia, is there really much difference between lumps and granulomas from a practical point of view? If it occurs on the surface, then obviously the redness, makes a big difference. But if one can\'t see the difference, other than perhaps feeling some soreness, how would one be able to tell they have a lump or a granuloma? I\'d even wager than much of the soreness one experiences with a visible granuloma is to do with the fact it looks so fierce. I\'ve got scar tissue and when I touch it, at times it can be really quite tender. But I only recently found out it was scar tissue and prior to that I didn\'t have any discomfort. Would one be able to tell in the lumps are red if they have developed below the fascia instead of in the skin?

I\'m wondering if the rate of granulomas and lumps really is less when injected sub dermally as Dr C is suggesting. Maybe they are just considerably less noticeable. He seems to inject far less than many Dr\'s using PMMA, so is probably avoiding the \"bag of rocks\" types of granuloma which have been mentioned elsewhere. The lumpy scar tissue on my penis is pretty sizeable and easily as big as some of the granulomas in the photo\'s. Yet I didn\'t know it was there until recently and had assumed my issues with the skin not moving and length retraction were due to too much Dartos fascia being removed.

@hoddle

i was saying not big deal in terms that for what i understood dosen\'t cause any health risk if left untreated.
Is correct assuming that no health risk can develop form untreated FBG?