|
|
Post by eqstudent on Jun 27, 2011 7:31:02 GMT -5
...There is a glaring absence of an actual medical/scientific explanation for there concerns... In my opinion the data is more than sufficient to support the concerns. I am not a doctor but I do have a pre-med undergrad degree and a graduate degree in Biomedical Engineering and so have enough background to read the literature in context. I am surprised you would question the medical explanation for the concerns. They are consistently stated by doctors in the US who are opposed to semi-permanent and permanent fillers in general and PMMA in particular. The two concerns that are cited are 1) Granuloma formation 2) Difficulty in removal if there is any problems IMO those concerns are very legitimate and reasonable and I understand why a majority of US plastic surgeons are opposed to the permanent fillers. Don’t forget that some of those docs were burnt with the previous generation of PMMA filler products! The more conservative docs will wait for 5 years and see how the studies and data look. It is important to remember that the competing Hyaluronic Acid based products don’t have those side effects or any other major side effects. As far as penis enhancement usage, most doctors believe that risks/complication rate in any penis enhancement procedure is too high to even consider. The anecdotal evidence presented on this forum supports that view. As far as dd72 posts to “real self” and “make me heal” I thought the docs gave their opinions. What did you expect them to say? Quite frankly the questions were either argumentative or made no sense. First doc said he had no experience with penis and low complication rate in buttock use. Second doc TJ based (obviously uses PMMA) said he would not inject in amounts larger than 2 cc and that even 10cc would cause issues. Including granulomas. Third doc says not a fan of permanent injectable and sites granuloma Fourth doc says not seen any issue with PMMA , seen silicone issues, and (correctly) granulomas have to be excised. By the way plastic surgeons do not diagnose granulomas. Only a pathalogist can make that call. I just don’t any issues with those responses given the context of posts on plastic surgery message boards. If dd72 was serious about getting credible answers to PMMA questions he should find an experienced PMMA doctor and schedule a consultation with him or her. That’s what I did. |
|
dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 27, 2011 8:38:22 GMT -5
eqstudent if they are in fact plastic surgeons and pmma Isint there forte, than why give there opinion in the first place? They even go as far as fear mongering and conveniently recommend there fat and implant services. All I asked wad if they have ever personally diagnosed these problems.... And NONE of them did. The TJ based dr did pmma and never diagnosed infections. I resent your statement that my questions didn't make sense, I thought it wAs a pretty cut and dry question. Most of these drs say they REMOVE these problems several times a week. They claim they don't create the problems, they say they erase the problems. So surly they would be the ones to ask about complications no? If they do indeed remove these issues and see first hand the complications via pmma... How come NONE of them diagnosed an infection and true granulomas?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 27, 2011 9:14:35 GMT -5
@eq
It wasn't just granuloma formation, it was skin necrosis, and infection - all of which (including granulomas as you stated) have not been addressed at all. Not once. Just because they express these conditions as concerns, does not mean they have actually explained why or how they are concerns.
As for penis usage, I believe we must keep in mind the bulk of their contentions are in the context of facial fillers.
The same doctors who perform cosmetic procedures (with known risks) have chosen to speak up about something they simply don't understand. Let's face it, many of these doctors are very ignorant on the subject matter of PMMA and simply repeat (like a parrot) all of the bad things that have been traditionally associated with PMMA fillers with little to no actual medical/scientific explanation (i.e. physiological, pathological, etc). A wise doctor would concede he or she does not have all the pertinent info regarding the topic and should provide a cautionary warning... but instead many of these plastic-surgery-forum doctors, it is nothing more than a protection of their bottom-line and a promotion of their own brand!
Do a search on PMMA on those sites where doctors respond to prospective clients, I think it will make you appreciate my position a little bit more.
I would take these legitimate issues more seriously if these doctors could provide substantial arguments to warrant serious concern outside of sounding like a broken record.
The legitimate concerns they speak of:
1. Granuloma Formation - General consensus of the articles listed in this forum strongly suggest granuloma formation has a low occurrence.
2. Difficult Removal - It is permanent and at the micro-level, if one has an issue with this, one should not undergo the procedure.
As with all things Phalloplasty, there are risks one must assume. If near-permanency is a major issue for anyone, I'd strongly recommend scratching this method off the list immediately, because it is one aspect that will never change with refined & improve technique.
It is not so much that I mean to defend PMMA, but bring to light the mixed interests these PMMA opponents share.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 27, 2011 9:23:37 GMT -5
And even though I've probably mentioned it a few times already:
American Cosmetic Surgeons (those most interested in talking about PMMA) cannot use PMMA (patented Artefill), so they will NEVER speak of it in a positive, endorsing way.
Why can't they use it? Because figures all over the web price Artefill at $1000-$1500 per 0.8 cc !!!!!!!!
So a 12 cc injection to the penis would be roughly $20,000 +/-
If you were to do about the amount that E.P. did in total, I believe the estimated costs would have been put around $75,000 +/- , and maybe less if a volume discount was provided (lol).
Of course correct me if I'm mistaken anyone (with the rates or the math), virtually every resource I've come across has confirmed these prices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical One on Jun 27, 2011 9:44:22 GMT -5
On a side note,
Can't wait to launch the new forum, while it is mostly a ghost town right now, I have one particular member putting together what I think is the BEST Progress Report I've ever reviewed! I actually find it quite entertaining.
I also hope to migrate Messageman's Thread, which in my opinion is the best "Personal Experience" Thread ever!
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Pnievel on Jun 27, 2011 10:04:17 GMT -5
Does anyone know what happens if you don't treat a granuloma? My big fear is having to have the stuff cut out and as a result of this losing the shaft skin. But I'd only do that is it was essential the granuloma's were removed. So I wonder what would happen if you just accepted an inflamed and lumpy penis. Would the skin eventually breakdown or could one continue with a granuloma indefinitely? I am 6+ weeks for a small area that has redness below glans, where PMMA begins. It has not gotten better or worse. Recently, I have updated Dr. C. and RN Wade via email w/photo. As reported previously, another area of concern, the tiny red ball of hardness remains. However, it is much smaller in size, and the color has lightened. Be advised, I am not a doctor, I am a patient that has voluntarily gone through 3 rounds of PMMA. In my observations, I will try to be objective as possible. I will report of any change to status. Thank you to all members participating in the past half-dozen or so pages. It has been an interesting read. We have some very smart minds participating. |
|
supa
Contributing Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by supa on Jun 27, 2011 10:45:02 GMT -5
I am 6+ weeks for a small area that has redness below glans, where PMMA begins. It has not gotten better or worse. Recently, I have updated Dr. C. and RN Wade via email w/photo. As reported previously, another area of concern, the tiny red ball of hardness remains. However, it is much smaller in size, and the color has lightened. Be advised, I am not a doctor, I am a patient that has voluntarily gone through 3 rounds of PMMA. In my observations, I will try to be objective as possible. I will report of any change to status. Thank you to all members participating in the past half-dozen or so pages. It has been an interesting read. We have some very smart minds participating. Does it hurt? Or is it jsut visual/tactucal. At any rate, good luck EP. Best wished for speedy healing. |
|
supa
Contributing Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by supa on Jun 27, 2011 11:18:37 GMT -5
|
|
dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 27, 2011 11:31:38 GMT -5
Wish I could read the whole article, they want you to pay for the subscription
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Pnievel on Jun 27, 2011 12:18:15 GMT -5
I am 6+ weeks for a small area that has redness below glans, where PMMA begins. It has not gotten better or worse. Recently, I have updated Dr. C. and RN Wade via email w/photo. As reported previously, another area of concern, the tiny red ball of hardness remains. However, it is much smaller in size, and the color has lightened. Be advised, I am not a doctor, I am a patient that has voluntarily gone through 3 rounds of PMMA. In my observations, I will try to be objective as possible. I will report of any change to status. Thank you to all members participating in the past half-dozen or so pages. It has been an interesting read. We have some very smart minds participating. Does it hurt? Or is it jsut visual/tactucal. At any rate, good luck EP. Best wished for speedy healing. No pain felt. |
|
supa
Contributing Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by supa on Jun 27, 2011 13:24:16 GMT -5
Wish I could read the whole article, they want you to pay for the subscription i didnt have to pay anything. just clicked on the link. will copy and past cache as soon as i switch from iphone to pc tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by eqstudent on Jun 27, 2011 13:37:27 GMT -5
...American Cosmetic Surgeons (those most interested in talking about PMMA) cannot use PMMA (patented Artefill), so they will NEVER speak of it in a positive, endorsing way... Just to make sure we are not confusing readers. ArteFill has been used by US doctors in performing FDA approved and off-brand procedures for almost 5 years. While the cost to patients may be more than other injectables, the cost to doctors is quite similar  www.facialplasticsurgery.net/injectables.pdf I recently discussed chin enhancement with a local doctor and ArteFill was the cheapest of 3 options he gave me! One point which I have not seen posted here is that ArteFill and NewPlastic are very different. Some of the improvements that ArteFill achieved over the problematic ArtePlast (including smooth similar sized microspheres) do not appear to be in NewPlastic. Please see Aesthetic Surgery Journal 30(3) I have posted a short excerpt “ArteFill is distinctly different from Newplastic. The spheres are more uniform and there are virtually no nanoparticles. ArteFill is a material made of 80% bovine collagen and 20% smooth PMMA microspheres ranging in diameter from 30 to 42 microns, mixed with 0.3% lidocaine. Newplastic, on the other hand, is a suspension of 30% PMMA microspheres in a nonimmunogenic solution made with hydroxicellulose, methylparabene, propylparaben, and water. Included are images (Figures 1 and 2) showing the electron microscopy (EM) differences between Newplastic and ArteFill…” Dr. Steven R. Cohen is on the Medical Advisory Board of Suneva Medical, Inc., the company that manufactures and distributes ArteFill. He has received stock options and periodic reimbursement for travel, lodging, and consulting. He is also an investigator in the FDA postapproval safety study for ArteFill. |
|
|
|
Post by mikehok on Jun 27, 2011 13:41:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by eqstudent on Jun 27, 2011 13:49:47 GMT -5
dd72 I already explained why asking a plastic surgeon if he had diagnosed a granuloma does not make any sense. If you are truly interested in getting info on granuloma in contact Dr. Carruthers that supa posted. @s.O. I see your point on the short incomplete responses to these questions by docs on some forums. I would not make any decision pro or con based on docs answers on forums. In your experience it seems that the docs you have contacted to do not have the neessary detail, the ones I spoke to had very good detail and reference info. I suggest you find more competent docs.
|
|
dd72
Contributing Member
Posts: 67
|
Post by dd72 on Jun 27, 2011 13:55:03 GMT -5
@eq i agree with that completely. New plastic is superior to metacrill, but def inferior to artefill. I wonder the advantages/disadvantages with each one when compared to one another. The only advantage I could think of for New plastic is no chance of allergy to bovine collegen.
|
|
?