TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

skatezy777 wrote: Sorry, eqstudent, is the attached paper in support of your argument that Carruthers has done a 180 and is now against Artecoll? It seems in the paper to suggest that the method is safe, and that the late onset granulomas have responded successfully to treatment.

That was one of his initial reports in 2005 when he was one of the biggest proponents of Artecoll and one who suggested that the granulomas were rare and easily managed with steroid therapy. Compare with his more recent statements including ones here:http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/135215598.htmlAlthough a 2003 publication cited just 15 cases of delayed granulomatous reactions worldwide, he has seen at least 8 cases in Vancouver alone, including one in a patient he personally injected with the permanent filler.Another patient injected 3 years ago by another physician has not responded to numerous therapies, said Dr. Carruthers.\"I\'ve spent a year and a half treating her with everything I can think of to throw at her,\" he said.A Vancouver colleague has spent a similar length of time treating a patient with a delayed granulomatous reaction, \"and she is not responding well.\"

smartman wrote: ... why is he using another permanent product which can cause the same serious complication?? ...

This is the kind of question which you clutter this and other thread with which leads me to question your motives or understanding of this subject matter. Ask him not me! Quite frankly the answers are just not germane to this discussion, but pick one of the following:1) He believes that Silikon has a much lower complication rate for some procedures2) He believes that Silikon is an appropriate risk/reward solution for HIV wasting3) He believes that Silikon is overall safer than Artefill/Artesense for HIV patients4) Silikon is more cost effective for the volume required for HIV Wasting.How does this help with understanding the issues in this thread?If you don't believe that granulomas is a serious complication just say so and move on.

@eqstudent
I noticed you referenced in one of your earlier posts the Caldellas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20601571
In that study, ALL 21 of the patients had granulomatous formations with PMMA.
I am wondering why you pegged the risk of granuloma formation then, in an earlier post, at about 2 in 100? What am I missing? That is indeed a discouraging study.

@skatezy - I rounded up the 1.4% (2/145) from the initial Artefill FDA presentation. I agree that the evidence suggests that the Newplastic numbers are likely much higher I don\'t want to get hung up on a debate on the exact number.

The important point is that if all 200 members on this forum had Newplastic PMMA, 4 of us are likely to get granulomas. Now maybe it is 10 to 20 like Arteplast or maybe only 2 or 3. It is important that the 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 brothers on this forum understand what they may be up against if their number is called!

@eqstudent
Okay, so that low risk of granuloma formation is based on ARTEFILL, not New Plastic PMMA. And so I presume you would suspect that granuloma formation for PMMA would be much, much higher? I can\'t remember, but I believe one of the members here asked Wade about Artefill, and he said they won\'t use it. I\'ll have to double check that.

@Skatezy,
I believe that they would use it (or any brand for that matter) from what I\'ve been told, but that it would not be very practical when it came to costs.

@eqstudent
Let us think about it this way :-
To have an answer for this is IMO :-
1- the FDA approval :-
Artefill (PMMA) had the approval as a Dermal Filler and they have approved silicon oil injection (silikon 1000) for only eye procedure and not as a Dermal Filler.

2- Let\'s say If one of these 4 points you have mentioned above is true??? :-
It doesn\'t mean there is no chance of FBG (as he said it is a serious complication) after silicon oil injection even if it was 1: >5000 ??? still you can have a FBG in this silicon, correct ???
Our inquiry is not about which one (PMMA or Silicon oil) has less chance of developing FBG ?? It is about if FBG granuloma formation is a serious complication from a permanent filler or not ??? If the answer is YES ---> How about FBG formation after silicon oil injection, is it serious or not ???
I might be wrong it could be FBG after PMMA injection is more serious than after silicon oil injection .

@smartman - any granuloma after a cosmetic procedure would be viewed as a serious complication by most medical personell. Please re read post 92 phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...9726355&postcount=92

@eqstudent
Thanks for clarification on my question.
@Skeptical One et al.
Here are two seemingly contradictory posts on whether Dr. C. would inject Artefill:
Subject: question about pmmaReplies: 4Posted By: swampmanViews: 113 After reading the thread about PMMA and concerns. I spoke to mr wade in regards to using artefill he said they can not use it in the penis, due to the collagen based vehicle.
he said however they can use metacril (sp) in place of newplastic, its about 400 /cc
any advice would be helpful... aesthetics is important but i would love to hear opinions on which seems to be a more safer PMMA

Subject: Sizemic\'s PE and PMMA logReplies: 119Posted By: Dd71Views: 4,059 @EQ&SIZE I spoke to wade yesterday and they are becoming adamant about only using 10% concentration. They say that they dont want to stray from making it anenhancement as oppossed to an enlargement. They want patients to be content with having a heavier penis with less retraction.

On a diffrent note I spoke to wade about my concern with New Plastic vs. Artefill. He said they had a 3rd party Dr study all the PMMA avaliable in the open market. This dr is from the US (Florida) and does most of his work on HIV patients for facial reconstruction. He did a blind study on all the materials and his conclusion suggested new plastic is nearly as pure as artefill. He is sending me the drs info today, when I recive it I will share it with the forum. I asked wade if one were to want artefill regardless, would Dr.C Use it/ or even be familiar with it. He said that Dr. C is familiar with it and would use ANY PMMA the patient wanted. But he still strongly suggested that it is unessasary to be frivolous being that new plastic was nearly its equal. I mean, im sure they could profit using artefill marking patients up on the product(Artefill) So IMO they honestly belive that New plastic is not inferior to artefill.

It could be Dr. A. Carruthers is using Silicon injection because it has a less serious complication or less frequent???? from FBG formation than PMMA :-
www.realself.com/question/are-silkion-10...used-butt-augmentati
They have mentioned FBG after silicon oil injection would be nearly impossible to treat.
The adverse effects of liquid silicone injections :- have included movement of the silicone to other parts of the body, inflammation and discoloration of surrounding tissues, and the formation of granulomas (nodules of granulated, inflamed tissue).
So Dr. A. Carruthers think silicon oil injection is safer than PMMA as a volume enhancer

---

> so could it be better to use it in penile injection instead of PMMA
@eq- you have said (( If you don't believe that granulomas is a serious complication just say so and move on.))

IMO if a complication like e.g. a foreign body granuloma from any filler is a serious complication --->e.g. from using the temporary filler (e.g. Hyaluronic acid) and esp. permanent fillers ---> so that mean the whole world should stop using them ???

Are we smarter than FDA in regard of FBG (as a serious complication ??)(e.g in Artefill which has the lowest chance of FBG formation but even that FBG had happened with Artefill) if it is so serious and untreatable would they give the Approval ??? Wouldn\'t we think they would remove it from the market if FBG was so serious ??

Everything on this forum makes me sooo torn haha. I don\'t know if I want to do it based off the lack of knowledge of long term effects but I do want to based on what results others have had. Ahhhh.

comingfromwi wrote: Everything on this forum makes me sooo torn haha. I don\'t know if I want to do it based off the lack of knowledge of long term effects but I do want to based on what results others have had. Ahhhh.

When in doubt, choose against proceeding with any elective procedure. Hasty decision-making in the past has usually been more often negative than positive.
I probably can\'t reiterate it enough, and I know many others have chimed in, but the benefit/risk trade-off should be carefully analyzed before a decision is made.
I don\'t mean to come off sounding like I\'m telling you what you should or shouldn\'t do, but your expression of being \"torn\" forced me to speak up, because I know such sentiments can\'t belong to someone who is fully prepared for what lies ahead. You\'ll have to come to terms one way or the other (for or against).
Good luck buddy! Stay tuned on the forum, you\'ll begin to feel more and more confident about your decision (to go or forgo) with PMMA in due time.

How much more would procedure with artefil cost than np?
If it lowers the risk ten folds it might be worth it. Is it so expensive to purify the product from micro particles? why the don\'t make np so pure?

If Dr.C has used np on penises for 6 years some of his patients should (according to statistics of the af study) have formed FBG\'s and some would have formed fbg\'s that need to be surgically removed.

Or maybe he has not had that many patients yet ... or fbg\'s might form later?

Who knows. Thank\'s for great input fellas!

@Jec

Dr C. does NOT offer Artefill for penis bioplasty. He uses it for the treatment of other body parts (face, etc). Reason: Artefill contains bovin collagen whereas his PE technique is based on water carriers.

So far, no patient treated by Dr C. for PE via PMMA has required surgical Removal of the product.

Thanks for that tidbit supa!