TOPIC: PMMA Ninja Turtle - Retraction Problems for GROWERS

Hi Miracle,

Glad to hear you never retract. That\'s an impressive Flaccid measurement, most of us would like that as BPEL...

I agree with you that 30% doesn\'t feel as all as smooth or as natural as lower concentrations. Even 20% was alright, but 10% felt like the original. I wish I had stayed with 10% all the way. Last September I hadn\'t heard back from anyone else that 30% felt different and was way less flexible. This makes for a very difficult aesthetic when Flaccid, which also makes the shaft more likely to be noticed as a vulgar artificial implant - defeating the purpose of having \"stealth\" PMMA enhancement.

I think my only chance now is to fly to Seoul, South Korea to get in a few sessions of Lippen-P glans enhancement, hoping that if it is wider that it won\'t be able to be sucked up inside the shaft?!? If you have any ideas of what might be done, I\'m game. I don\'t feel like getting degloved just to start over the entire PMMA process.

HC

I think you got the wrong procedure. You should have had some tacking done, as they do for buried penis.

The more I see of 30%, the more it reminds me of FFT. Obviously it\'s much firmer than fat, but they are both palpable and seem to create similar aesthetic issues. Your photos look like a classic FFT procedure.

I never get the PMMA TMNT issue but 30% just doesn\'t feel as smooth and natural as lower concentrations. My shortest measurement Flaccid is 6.5\". My only hope is that I haven\'t opened a \"can of worms\" with this and a final touchup session will resolve the issues I\'m having. If I could go back in time, I would stick with 10% for every session no matter how many sessions were required. Just my 2'.

@Hoddle
Wade said that there is no charge for fixing complications (nodules, FBG, etc). If more PMMA is used, then there is a charge based on the amount of filler used. I still believe Dr. Casavantes performs excellent work and that patient anatomy, postoperative care, reaction to implant, etc weigh heavily on the final outcome.

@Sizemic
It was speculated that the titration of 10% and 30% to arrive at 20% was a major culprit in aesthetic issues. I don\'t believe that\'s the case (see above). If all one cares about is size then 30% is the way to go but the end result will in no way feel natural. In my eyes, this defeats the purpose. I\'m married, but if I were single, I\'d be way too timid and reluctant to attempt to pass my unit off as \"just lucky, I guess\" even barring any visual oddities. I\'ve received all three concentrations and I agree completely with Hoddle10. I postulate 15% would be the ideal concentration for use in the penis. Sure, the gains won\'t be as great, but the end result is more natural and more easily dealt with in future rounds. Some got pretty good gains from 10%. And FWIW, in the manual PE realm, a 1/4\" Erect gain is pretty damn impressive indeed.

Sizemic wrote: Didn\'t Dr C switch to 30% based on our own demands here? Everyone was so concerned that 20% was causing issues and that he wasn\'t mixing it right, or that it wasn\'t supposed to be mixed in the first place. 30% was all the rage even 6 months ago. Everyone seemed to praise it. Not only that but there were a lot of members unhappy with 10% saying they gained very very little. Myself included which I gained nothing from a full session in Round 3 of 10%. 10% seemed to produce results for the first round, but following rounds I remember a few complaints of no gains.

I\'m not sure having 10% rounds is the way to go either... not unless people actually like spending $2000+ on only 0\" - 0.25\" gains per session.

Unless of course Dr C stays true to his original opinion, that PMMA should be seen as an enhancement and not an enlargement. The current procedure completely contradicts what he originally outlined, which was a conservative approach of 10-12cc, followed by a touch up if necessary. Again, I don\'t want to be controversial or offend Dr C, Wade and their many happy patients, but I\'m pretty damn sure that was what Dr C said to those originally looking into the procedure.

@hoddie, you are right, his original approach (and I believe desired approach) was very different than what people are asking for today.

When I got round 1 it was unheard of to go over 20cc in one session. I got 22cc and judging by their reactions in the room it was one of the highest volume procedures they had done. It wasn\'t even entirely 20% either.

His original approach was 15cc - 20cc usually per round. Of mostly 20%.

Then he started using mostly 10% and patients seemed to gain just as much in their first rounds with it. BUT, during following rounds people gained far less and some were unhappy with only gaining 0.1\" or 0.2\" in their procedures.

Then some longer guys on the forum started getting 25+cc rounds (I remember some were 28cc or more... even 32cc?) of 20% and 10%.

Then people starting blaming the 20% and the fact that its mixed as to why some people have poor aesthetic results, chances for infection etc.

He started using 30% because everyone seemed to want un-altered product thinking it would give more gains and a better aesthetic result.

He phased out 20% completely it seems after New Plastic changed to Linuea Safe. But he continues to do high volume rounds of 30% it seems now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like that\'s how this all progressed? He is just giving people what they are asking for... at least it seems that way. People keep pushing the envelope. I\'ve never had 30% though so I can\'t really say if its good or not.

hoddle10 wrote: Obviously it isn\'t my business and I know you have a great relationship with Dr C and Wade, but I really hope they don\'t charge you for any further procedure. My big issue with them is they aren\'t anywhere near conservative enough given the experimental nature of the procedure and ultimately it\'s the patients that pay, often both physically and financially. It\'s damn expensive to keep flying to Mexico, staying in hotels and paying for more PMMA. That\'s not to mention the massive inconvenience. I\'m not in anyway doubting Dr C\'s integrity, as by all reports he\'s a really great guy and clearly a very skilled practitioner, but as I\'ve said many time there are some issues that I strongly feel they need to sort out and the 30% thing is just the latest.

Hi Hoddle,


I guess how you look at the financial aspects of \"issues\" with PMMA is a matter of perspective. I went in understanding that this is experimental and even exploratory Phalloplasty, but I didn\'t expect some kind of protocol whereby Dr C would give me years of treatments for free just to gather up case studies whereby he could make this entire development bullet-proof for future patients to the financial benefit of other practitioners.


Given my issues with my 2nd session\'s clumping, Dr C gave me a break on those costs, taking on some himself. However, I don\'t know what he would consider this time, given that my current issue might be attributed to my incorrect massaging of the PMMA towards the base. Yet I was not told clearly that I was to press downwards towards the pelvis to prevent it from massing at the tip. I was only told to make sure it is evenly distributed to prevent clump formation, and given my prior issues I only did that, make sure it was all smooth all around the surface.


Futhermore, I expect that Dr C will not only need to spend hours puncturing my shaft and breaking down the collagen with a canula, but also use quite a bit of costly 10% Linnea-Safe to fix my problems. While I agree that if this were a more routine procedure gone bad, that he ought to assume corrective measure more fully.


However, it is very hard to know what happened to bring this about. I had bad webbing and irregular skin tension on my shaft. I had clumps which needed to be covered up and buried in enough material. I am short plus tend to get bad retraction. I also wanted Girth. That is quite a combination of demands and constraints which make for a difficult solution to meet each requirement, while the incumbent risks of every combination of variables are not yet properly assessed for this relatively new procedure.


So I will pay whatever is necessary to HOPEFULLY correct as may be my problem, and Dr C shall do what he considers appropriate the time come, in terms of intervention and payment. I trust that he is committed, and think that degloving is not something indispensable unless pain prevents patients from waiting for a less extreme solution. And, of course, I won\'t be upset if it costs me less rather than more to fix. My attempt at correcting it with a ligament cut in Russia cost me already a bundle.


HC

miracle7.5x6 wrote: @HC
I will be in contact with Wade shortly to discuss my concerns which include the palpability and unnatural texture of the 30% PMMA. I will let you know what he has to offer afterwards. I imagine that the doctor can soften hardened areas using the cannula to break up clusters of beads and then cover with 10% to mask the artificial feel of the underlying product. Either way, no more 30% for this man. 10% all the way.

Hi Miracle,


It is good to see an intermittent ADMINISTRATOR of this forum and current MODERATOR take up these issues with Doctor Luis Casavantes. He is a very responsible individual and he shall surely take to addressing these issues and our concerns, integrating any knowledge thus derived into his treatment orientations.


Aside from clumps which were detectable, in my first two sessions I had no PMMA that was detectible to the touch (my personal assessment of shaft texture) either with 10% New Plastic aka Linnea-Safe or with 20% Metacryl (this however did clump). The 30% Linnea-Safe gives a general impression - regularly and evenly spread on the upper end of the shaft - similar to my previous rubbery clumps, which were only in certain areas. The rubbery feel is all around the circumference of the shaft, and I have noticed that it has slightly diminished over six months: it was at its hardest one month after injection.


I guess the similarity between the texture of clumps and higher concentrations of PMMA makes sense. Clumps are a clustering of PMMA, making the localized concentration in one small area greater than it ought to be, had it been properly dispersed around the entire surface of the shaft. Hence, the greater the concentration, the more rubbery the tactile impression. As a consequence, your unit feels more artificially enhanced and less natural, the more plastic beads are present in proportion to the collagen, almost giving the impression of a buried plastic dildo.


So I agree that even if it winds up costing more with extra sessions and although one must wait longer to achieve a desired final result, 10% all the way would be the way I would proceed if I were to do so again. My PERFECT 1st session results with 10% lulled me into too much confidence about PMMA in any concentration. Had I known that it would be less natural to the touch, I would have stayed away from the higher concentration levels. And I concur that our collective experience here seems to currently point towards the neighborhood of a 15% concentration to give gains while retaining a perfectly \"original\" feel.


Thanks for taking such concerns to Tijuana and hopefully Dr C will have a few weeks to consider what remedies can be brought to guys with issues like mine, so that when I arrive he already has an idea of what might be done during a follow-up session?


HC

hoddle10 wrote: Watch the video at the bottom of this page from 2.00 mins to 3.30 mins. It shows the skin being tacked to the base of the penis. This prevents skin sliding forward and creating the \"pig in blanket\" look.

www.savaperovic.com/penis-enlargement-surgery.html#vdo

It seems to me that 30% is also more mobile, again like fat. This means that when the skin bunches up, the PMMA squeezes into a ball and looks bad. It will be more apparent in uncut guys, as their skin is more mobile, but also true for guys such as yourself who have had a slightly aggressive circ, which causes for the pubic area to move up the shaft.

I don\'t want to cause any controversy, as I know member senior members of the site have so much respect for him and a very good relationship, but I think their is so much wrong with Dr C\'s practice.

Hi Hoddle,


I saw the technique you recommend, however this seems to be extremely aggressive surgery which may not be indispensable in my condition. At least I certainly hope so. Regarding the plasticity of 30% PMMA I am not sure that it actually does \"squeeze into a ball\" as you say. The enlarged \"ball look\" comes from the glans penetrating inside of it, and bloating it outwards at the location of its outer ridge. This gives a circular tennis ball look to my dick which is very embarrassing in public.


I go to coed saunas and nude beaches, so this is what my unit looks like to strangers. I get some weird looks! It is more by virtue of gravity that it does this. If I am laying down and pull my flaccid upwards towards the sky, even if turtling the PMMA goes towards the base and it doesn\'t look like a pig in a blanket. I figured on attacking this problem on 3 fronts.


- First get extra flaccid length through a ligament cut. I think I must have gained around one inch flaccid length. However, this didn\'t fix the problem, only it extends the tennis ball one inch further away from my pelvis.
Aesthetic Gain = ZERO.

- Second get a glans enhancement in Seoul with PMMA injections. Costs will be high adding travel and treatments, but also useful for aesthetic gains erect, my glans looking more natural instead of smaller than the shaft.
Aesthetic Risk = A LARGER TENNIS BALL ???

- Third to ask Dr C during my 4th PMMA session in June to do whatever he can think of to fix the problem, relying upon his knowledge of PMMA, penile dynamics and techniques to anchor the collagen to my base and possibly prevent this weight shifting to the tip.
Aesthetic Risk = UNKNOWN.


I think that possibly, due to the total mass of PMMA over 3 sessions and especially the thickness required to cover up my earlier corrected clumps, added to this my failure to properly keep the product at the base after my last session by the correct massaging technique, I wound up with a lopsided end result with most of the PMMA at the upper 2/3 of my unit. This made it imbalanced in terms of having a lot of mass per square inch of grip on the inner surfaces, causing it to slide in the direction of gravity?


It is the conjunction of many factors, including my webbing due to poor circumcision, which must be taken into account. Yes, or course Dr C cannot have already established a fully comprehensive checklist of all the potential ramifications of every combination of earlier protocols, pre-existing conditions, etc. How would this be possible? Only by experimentation. And as pioneers in phalloplasty this can only be done by trial and error. I don\'t mind being in the error column, as a volunteer in this process, as long as it is a temporary situation which can be corrected over time.


While I understand that you have chosen to wait until the procedure is perfected, and reliably certain as to its results after being bullet-proofed by more daring members here, nobody is forcing anyone to get PMMA injected into their unit. Dr C does his very best to undertake everything in his power to remedy and problems, to this I can attest. Every single issue I had with my 2nd session was totally resolved to my entire satisfaction, and I remain confident that he and Wade will be able to figure out some way of improving my current condition of excessive turtling, by possible softening the tissues of my upper shaft and by adding thickness to the lower shaft, perhaps widening at the base?


I didn\'t mean to start this thread to panic anyone about PMMA. That is why I chose a HUMOROUS title, calling my new unit a NINJA TURTLE. I am happier now, despite this flaccid result I really hoped to avoid, because my erect result is quite outstanding and that\'s what matters most: improving one\'s love life is nothing to sneeze at. For this and although I sincerely hope for there to be a remedy, even were I to remain \"as is\" for the rest of my days, I thank Dr C and commend him for bringing significant progress to phalloplasty.

HC

When I turtle hard, my Flaccid is similar to HC\'s, although this effect (Turtling) does not happen nearly as often as before I had PMMA. I\'ve contemplated whether or not having a very mild \"buried penis\" (a topic I learned about through my chats with Hoddle) could be contributing to this pig-in-the-blanket & small Flaccid effect, and I will have it addressed in the future. Maybe a combination of some sort of \"tacking\" and/or lipo, and manual PE may improve my Flaccid, since I will probably not undergo lengthening surgery. I will say, however, that the pig-in-the-blanket look sure as hell beats my pre-PMMA Flaccid any day of the week.

As for now, I\'ve conceded well in advance the risk that my Flaccid may occasionally appear as a pig-in-the-blanket, and having smaller-than-average glans lends my penis to that aesthetic.

I\'m wondering if there is any effective treatment behind mitigating/blocking the physiological mechanism that makes a segment of men growers/turtlers. Maybe some kind of botox-like product? Or maybe, as I mentioned previously, a combination of tacking, lipo, manual PE, and in HC\'s case, even lengthening (which I probably wont do). I\'m all ears and will continue following this thread.

I totally agree with you Hoddle and Miracle the new collagen post- 30% conc. feels firm and rough so it will be better to use a lower conc. i.e. between 10%-20% .

If we look at the korean doctors and what they use for a conc. :-

- Only 20% PMMA Artecoll mixed with 70% crossed-linked dextran (LIPEN-10) or Lipen-8 for the shaft .

- But for the Glans they use only 15% PMMA Artecoll mixed with 85% crossed-linked dextran (LIPEN-P). N.B. they could easily make the 10% for the glans but they didn\'t I am sure they found that the 15% gives a better gain and esthetic result for the glans.

So I think these doctors tried many different conc.s of PMMA for the shaft and the glans and I assume they found the right one for each.

Hello, this is my first time posting. Thank you everyone for providing a community for this. In regards to this particular matter, its definitely seems like sizemic is right. Dr. C is catering to demand. My thought is that after some point, a large enough gain would likely produce the pig in a blanket effect for many people. The question is at what increase would likely cause this? I would imagine .5 to .75 inches is the max for many.

@HC
You mentioned that this was not an issue until the 3rd session. What kind of increase did you get for the first two sessions if you don\'t mind restating? This appears to be a limit for you at least, unless the 30% is the sole culprit.

Has anyone else found that after session one or two, they suddenly had the pig in a blanket effect?

@Hunk,

What were your Girth measurements pre-PMMA? What are your measurements now? How many cc\'s total?

The same effect would likely happen with big gains on a Grower no matter what % was used in my opinion.... PMMA tissue is thicker than normal tissue and I\'d bet would give the same effect regardless of percent used with the same gains (ie, 4 x 10% rounds vs. 1 x 30% rounds).

True, going into it at 4.5\" EG if I was told I\'d get 5.5\" EG and that was the limit I would have been happy with that. I remember pumping that big and thinking it was huge. Another issue is that there are other Doc\'s like Dr. N who do 30% only with big sessions. I think a lot of people here pointed to Dr. N\'s work as evidence that its ok for Dr. C to do the same type stuff. I agree though, if he was more stern in keeping to his original approach (enhancement vs. pure enlargement) there would be less issues here.

Sizemic wrote: @hoddie, you are right, his original approach (and I believe desired approach) was very different than what people are asking for today.

When I got round 1 it was unheard of to go over 20cc in one session. I got 22cc and judging by their reactions in the room it was one of the highest volume procedures they had done. It wasn\'t even entirely 20% either.

His original approach was 15cc - 20cc usually per round. Of mostly 20%.

Then he started using mostly 10% and patients seemed to gain just as much in their first rounds with it. BUT, during following rounds people gained far less and some were unhappy with only gaining 0.1\" or 0.2\" in their procedures.

Then some longer guys on the forum started getting 25+cc rounds (I remember some were 28cc or more... even 32cc?) of 20% and 10%.

Then people starting blaming the 20% and the fact that its mixed as to why some people have poor aesthetic results, chances for infection etc.

He started using 30% because everyone seemed to want un-altered product thinking it would give more gains and a better aesthetic result.

He phased out 20% completely it seems after New Plastic changed to Linuea Safe. But he continues to do high volume rounds of 30% it seems now.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like that\'s how this all progressed? He is just giving people what they are asking for... at least it seems that way. People keep pushing the envelope. I\'ve never had 30% though so I can\'t really say if its good or not.

That\'s by far my main gripe. I\'ve said it on a number of occasions before, but this procedure shouldn\'t be driven by consumer demand. Dr C has to set firm parameters in my opinion and some sort of patient profiling needs to be done.

I think he should simply outline the procedure he offers and let guys take it or leave it. You love your new penis, but had Dr C insisted on one round and a top up, would you not still be really happy? It\'s only because you know the option is there that you crave more and more. 4 years ago, if you were told you\'d gain an Inch in Girth from a procedure that cost $4000 and involved two trips to TJ spaced 2 months apart, with virtually no down time, wouldn\'t you have jumped at the chance?