TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

Very true. Newplastic is the latest generation of Bioplasty, thats why I put it in paren just like Artefill is the latest gen of Artecol which is also in Salles.

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.

marcop83 wrote: ..We can ask Dr Lemperle

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

hoddle10 wrote: ' 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 see your point. I guess one would not be able to differentiate the mildest granuloma and a lump. A lump or Nodule is a small hard mass that will not change size over its lifetime. A granuloma is a small squishy inflammatory mass that will grow over its lifetime. In most cases it will present with swelling, inflammation, and pain. Note that if one reads the Salles 'Complication'' paper I posted earlier and used Lemperle's definition, 26 of the 32 cases are granulomas. Note that the 2 butt implants (deep) presented with pain and nodularity. A plastic surgeon I just spoke to, who has treated several moderate/severe filler granulomas said 'think of Kidney/Lima bean sized cold sores but in some cases more swollen and painful extending the length of your nasolabial fold.' Now imagine living with that condition for 4 months to 3+ years of treatment. He also said forget about surgical excision if used in penis augmentation. That situation would likely require a > 10 surgery reconstruction nightmare.

@ 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?

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.

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

supa wrote:

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

I\'ll ask the question on RealSelf.

I\'ve posted the question on RealSelf. I spent ages typing it out on Word, only to find that you can only use a very limited amount of characters when asking a question on RealSelf, so have to dramatically shorten and edit, but think I made myself clear.

Originally Posted by hoddle10
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.

We can ask Dr Lemperle