TOPIC: Does Dr. Oates really do DFG?

I read on the website of Dr. Oates that offers DFG (dermal fat graft), and I wonder why he offers this rather than Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), which most every surgeon seems to prefer. He also wrote on the forum that in Australia the procedure is extremely expensive, and it makes me wonder if they actually perform it or that it is just "there" on the website for some reason?

I ask because I had DFG myself elsewhere, and the surgeon also offered ADM. He said DFG is better, but it does not seem to be what most surgeons think. I just thought it sounded better to have a graft from my own body, and other than the scar, on the buttocks, the degloving procedure and extended surgery time, I am curious if there is any reason why ADM is better? I read a lot about it, and for example Dr. Gary J Alter describe the cons/pros being pretty much the same.

@Dr_Oates is an active member of the forums, perhaps he can clarify

Just a while ago I came across something that a surgeon wrote on the topic, and it correlates with my previous assumption:

"Because autograft dermal fat grafts for penile widening require a donor site(s) and, therefore, incision(s) and scar(s) --- 6 years ago I stopped using autograft dermal fat grafts and since then only use Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) in my patients who wish penile widening.

The advantages of Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) over autograft dermal fat grafts are: it eliminates the need for incisions and scars at the donor sites (because there are none) and it significantly reduces the length of surgery."

So basically he is saying that the advantage is a lack of scars and incisions at donor sites, and second it reduces the length of the surgery. An interesting question then would be: are there any advantages of using DFG over ADM? He only lists the disadvantages.

Screen2584 wrote: Just a while ago I came across something that a surgeon wrote on the topic, and it correlates with my previous assumption:

"Because autograft dermal fat grafts for penile widening require a donor site(s) and, therefore, incision(s) and scar(s) --- 6 years ago I stopped using autograft dermal fat grafts and since then only use Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) in my patients who wish penile widening.

The advantages of Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) over autograft dermal fat grafts are: it eliminates the need for incisions and scars at the donor sites (because there are none) and it significantly reduces the length of surgery."

So basically be is saying that the advantage is a lack of scars and incisions at donor sites, and second it reduces the length of the surgery. An interesting question then would be: are there any advantages of using DFG over ADM? He only lists the disadvantages.

Personally, I see no advantages of a DFG over an ADM -- and if there were any, I would contend that the benefits of ADM very much outweigh whatever positives DFG might have. Not having to deal with a donor site on your body reduces both likelihood of complication and time undergoing surgery, two big huge bonuses in my opinion. I'd be curious to hear a Doctor make a strong case for DFG over ADM, I just don't see it.

Skeptical_One wrote:

Screen2584 wrote: Just a while ago I came across something that a surgeon wrote on the topic, and it correlates with my previous assumption:

"Because autograft dermal fat grafts for penile widening require a donor site(s) and, therefore, incision(s) and scar(s) --- 6 years ago I stopped using autograft dermal fat grafts and since then only use Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) in my patients who wish penile widening.

The advantages of Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) over autograft dermal fat grafts are: it eliminates the need for incisions and scars at the donor sites (because there are none) and it significantly reduces the length of surgery."

So basically be is saying that the advantage is a lack of scars and incisions at donor sites, and second it reduces the length of the surgery. An interesting question then would be: are there any advantages of using DFG over ADM? He only lists the disadvantages.

Personally, I see no advantages of a DFG over an ADM -- and if there were any, I would contend that the benefits of ADM very much outweigh whatever positives DFG might have. Not having to deal with a donor site on your body reduces both likelihood of complication and time undergoing surgery, two big huge bonuses in my opinion. I'd be curious to hear a Doctor make a strong case for DFG over ADM, I just don't see it.

Yes, it would be very interesting if a surgeon could explain why they prefer DFG over ADM?

Dr. Oates is no exception however. Dr. Mark P. Solomon, board sponsor, writes on his website that he offers DFG, or at least it would seem that way; he writes that he takes the DFG from scrotal tissue.

If I were to guess, this technique means there are no donor site scars and incisions on the buttocks, which are quite noticeable otherwise, and probably it reduces the risk of infections at the donor site.

And if I am not mistaken, ADM also requires degloving of the penis in order to insert the sheets? So in that sense it is no different from DFG.

Screen2584 wrote:

Skeptical_One wrote:

Screen2584 wrote: Just a while ago I came across something that a surgeon wrote on the topic, and it correlates with my previous assumption:

"Because autograft dermal fat grafts for penile widening require a donor site(s) and, therefore, incision(s) and scar(s) --- 6 years ago I stopped using autograft dermal fat grafts and since then only use Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) in my patients who wish penile widening.

The advantages of Allograft Dermal Matrix Grafts (Alloderm®) over autograft dermal fat grafts are: it eliminates the need for incisions and scars at the donor sites (because there are none) and it significantly reduces the length of surgery."

So basically be is saying that the advantage is a lack of scars and incisions at donor sites, and second it reduces the length of the surgery. An interesting question then would be: are there any advantages of using DFG over ADM? He only lists the disadvantages.

Personally, I see no advantages of a DFG over an ADM -- and if there were any, I would contend that the benefits of ADM very much outweigh whatever positives DFG might have. Not having to deal with a donor site on your body reduces both likelihood of complication and time undergoing surgery, two big huge bonuses in my opinion. I'd be curious to hear a Doctor make a strong case for DFG over ADM, I just don't see it.

Yes, it would be very interesting if a surgeon could explain why they prefer DFG over ADM?

Dr. Oates is no exception however. Dr. Mark P. Solomon, board sponsor, writes on his website that he offers DFG, or at least it would seem that way; he writes that he takes the DFG from scrotal tissue.

If I were to guess, this technique means there are no donor site scars and incisions on the buttocks, which are quite noticeable otherwise, and probably it reduces the risk of infections at the donor site.

And if I am not mistaken, ADM also requires degloving of the penis in order to insert the sheets? So in that sense it is no different from DFG.

Dr. Solomon has a Question & Answer thread and I believe he currently prefers Surgimend (similar to Alloderm and Belladerm) for girth enhancement. He's a great Doctor in this field and is incredibly insightful on all matters penis enlargement, especially since he's tasked with many repair/revision surgeries.

Dr. Oates is also a fantastic Physician and I'd trust his insight into phalloplasty.