TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

I\'m sure this question has been addressed at some point but it bothers my a little that PMMA Girth enhancement isn\'t more widespread. I understand why its use is restricted in the US, but why are there no doctors (that I know of) doing this in Europe, where many different brands of PMMA are legal?

It is possible that some of Dr. C\'s Patients have developed some problems with PMMA, but they may not have reported it here or anywhere else so the data is incomplete.

skatezy777 wrote:

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?

I agree that it\'s a question of what we will be tolerating.

It takes upto 24 hrs before questions are even posted on realself, so I\'m not expecting any answers for another day or 2.

skatezy777 wrote: ...@eqstudentI 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?...

Definately not an odd bump here or there. I like the cases from Salles because they are from real world clinical referrals to a hospital as opposed to speculation and propaganda. 'The interval between injection and first symptoms varied from 6 months to 1 year. Patients developed localized pain and nodule formation at the site of injection. The nodules could be palpable, visible, or both and could be associated with pain or not.' see page 4 of the pdf. This article was uploaded earlier in this thread phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...726355&postcount=92I suggest you talk to a plastic surgeon that has treated PMMA granulomas for their opinion. I posted a quote from 1 of the 3 I spoke to in a prior post.

But I think we have to ask Dr\'s who have treated granulomas at a deeper level. I\'m having trouble finding any useful information in that regard. There are reports of granulomas in the buttocks but we don\'t know the amount, type of PMMA or the concentration used. It\'s a shame we don\'t have any Portuguese speakers on the forum as bioplasty is very popular there and so there must be reports on Brazilian plastic surgery forums etc.

@hoddle10 ' I suspect that the amount and concentration will be difficult to get after the fact unless the patient remembers and the treating physician records it.In any event the 2 butt granulomas in the Salles study was from Bioplasty(Newplastic).

eqstudent wrote: @hoddle10 ' I suspect that the amount and concentration will be difficult to get after the fact unless the patient remembers and the treating physician records it.In any event the 2 butt granulomas in the Salles study was from Bioplasty(Newplastic).

According the their website, they use 30% concentration in the buttocks. But it\'s still unclear if in the Salles study it was indeed New Plastic. From what I understand New Plastic, as we know it, has only been around since 2005 (i\'m sure I read that somewhere), whilst Nacul started his Biolplasty procedures in early 90\'s. I think New Plastic is a newer generation of Bioplasty. Also the Salles study was from 2006 and reviewed cases from the previous 5 years, so for 80% of the study duration, New Plastic probably wasn\'t even being used.

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.

From I can gather old versions of Bioplasty had far greater range of particle size from 30-103.

But to be honest whatever the particle size or generation of PMMA, it seems there will always be a risk of granuloma formation. I just want to know how what having a granuloma would be like in reality (ie how bad in the \"pain\" etc), as like I mentioned before, I definitely don\'t want to have this stuff cut out.

@hoddle

did u get a response on RealSelf?

Yes, but a useless one that didn\'t address the question.

It seems to me that understanding exactly where the PMMA is injected will go a long way towards accessing how difficult it would be to remove. Has anyone already confirmed with Dr. C the exact plane in which the PMMA is injected? Is it put between the Dartos fascia (dt) and buck\'s fascia (bf) or between the buck\'s fascia and the tunica (a)?

It definitely doesn\'t go below the bucks. It goes below the Dartos fascia, at least that\'s the idea. Wade told me this as did a Urologist who used to inject macrolane. Apparently the bucks is quite tough and would not be easy to puncture accidently.

Thanks for the info, Mikehok.

eqstudent said:\"It is reasonable to project that at the 5 year mark; for every 100 of us that have PMMA injections, 2 of us will get a granuloma, 1 of us will get it resolved after 4 months to a year of treatment, and 1 of us will need to have it surgically removed!\"
So the injection site in this case does not make significant difference in FBG formation compared to the Artefil study?Id Dr.C has been doing PMMA injections to penis for six years, there should be FBG\'s formed on some of his patients?