TOPIC: Infections, Complications, Risks of PMMA?

I understand your point SO, I just wanted to explain HLM\'s points and try to help , the things he was concerned about are the long term consequences of PMMA :- ( as he mentioned hardening of the collagen, break down of the surrounding tissues --> Necrosis, absorption and migration ) if these complications are true they will happen not only in the penis but also in the face or other parts of the body ???
I would agree if the concern were (in regard of the penis) e.g. :- 1- EQ ( I agree we don\'t have a long study for that >5yrs) or 2- nodules or lumps (a known complication of PMMA in a dynamic organ).

Are PMMA injections for PE being performed by any stateside Urologist or plastic surgeon? If this product has a good track record for PE why won\'t any physician perform the procedure in the U.S.? Why do you have to go some bordertown in Mexico to have this procedure done? The result is not a natural looking penis(my opinion). Woman can be very quixotic about what they like in a man\'s penis...some woman enjoy being fisted but usually not everytime they make love. My stats 4.75in length Erect by 4.5in Girth=9+in--my penis has shrunk overall about .50inch with age Thus, my interest and research into
PE. I thought the Ellist implant made sense but alas it is just another regret that can at least be corrected thank God. Over the last 20 years I have tried pumping(manual & electric), Jelqing, stretching devices and nothing works permantly if at all...so I am at an end. I have also tried Penis Pills and the only one that worked was the original Enzyte but the Yohimbe made my BP dangerously hypertensive (270/140)!! I was only 37 at the time and had to quit. I did gain about an Inch overall and it was fun while it lasted but everything eventually shrunk back once I stopped taking Enzyte. Looks like every surgical method has drawbacks. It appears that non-US based physicians are making the same mistake our surgeons made during early attemps with FFT-over filling the penis shaft to compensate for absorption. I also had hopes when I first hear about PMMA but too new and no recourse if things go wrong...goodnight everyone.

My 2 cents: in a not very distant future, US surgeons will perform PMMA injections for PE.
You could also speculate that some of the criticism in the US against PMMA bioplasty is precisely due to the fact that such business is not available there yet (legal issues as a result of off-label use of Artefill).

The PMMA products New Plastic and Metacril used abroad are not FDA approved. A doctor using a non approved filler in the US would lose his license.
Artefill is a similar product and is available in the US to fill wrinkles...but it is extremely expensive at about $1,000 per cc. Most of the patients traveling abroad for PMMA (me included) are getting 30 - 60cc injected for a cost between $3,200 and $5,000.
The same amount of Artefill in the US would cost between $30,000 and $60,000!

southie wrote: The PMMA products New Plastic and Metacril used abroad are not FDA approved. A doctor using a non approved filler in the US would lose his license.
Artefill is a similar product and is available in the US to fill wrinkles...but it is extremely expensive at about $1,000 per cc. Most of the patients traveling abroad for PMMA (me included) are getting 30 - 60cc injected for a cost between $3,200 and $5,000.
The same amount of Artefill in the US would cost between $30,000 and $60,000!

@Hunglikeamouse
This, and Supa\'s post, pretty much address why you don\'t find this procedure state-side.
And to go further, many American Cosmetic physicians would prefer that the temporary filler market remain popular, since it ensures people come back for more injections. The last thing these physicians (and the temporary filler brands) want is a refined, successful, and affordable permanent filler. Even a member who said he works in the field of cosmetic surgery confirmed this reality.

hung like a mouse wrote: The result is not a natural looking penis(my opinion).

I\'ve been meaning to make a thread discussing the nature of expectations from cosmetic PE. When considering this route, we really have to remind ourselves that an artificial enhancement may possess artificial characteristics.
Or in other words, you can almost always tell when a chick has a boob job. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking, the majority of procedures that aim to augment the boobs, butt, and penis can never guarantee a 100% natural look, no matter how aesthetically-conscious the patient and/or doctor is.
That all being said, a quality physician can at the very least ensure a higher likelihood of aesthetic outcome & satisfaction, not unlike Dr. C\'s reputation on the forums.

But when it comes to penis size, there are no rules. There are midgets with a bigger penis than Sizemic and there are hulks with a 4\" penis....no disrespect meant to any one, my point is that it is hard to tell who has a certain size penis merely by looking at their physique. But, it is fairly easy to tell if a woman had a boob job just by looking at her body and touching the boobs...Most of the time, of course there are minor exceptions to the rule.

So I think we, men, know more about our penises than women will ever know about their vaginas, again GENERALLY speaking.

PMMA, when done properly as done by Dr C, and after a few sessions, can look very normal to an unsuspecting woman. Where as a woman with a boob job will never get away with it...IMHO!

Mustang2020 wrote: But when it comes to penis size, there are no rules. There are midgets with a bigger penis than Sizemic and there are hulks with a 4\" penis....no disrespect meant to any one, my point is that it is hard to tell who has a certain size penis merely by looking at their physique. But, it is fairly easy to tell if a woman had a boob job just by looking at her body and touching the boobs...Most of the time, of course there are minor exceptions to the rule.

So I think we, men, know more about our penises than women will ever know about their vaginas, again GENERALLY speaking.

PMMA, when done properly as done by Dr C, and after a few sessions, can look very normal to an unsuspecting woman. Where as a woman with a boob job will never get away with it...IMHO!

I agree, I was more-or-less reminding members that PMMA in the penis may result in a penis that doesn\'t look 100% natural... but it can result in something like \"85 or 95% realistic,\" and most women probably wont be able to tell. I do think with PMMA, if done conservatively, can be hard to detect. But the individual himself will definitely know something is up.
The boob/butt job analogy was cited to remind members that augmentation of body parts tend to possess artificial characteristics, although when done masterfully (more true for the butt & penis), can be harder to detect.

I think we are now in a better position to understand why so many US based physicians don\'t like PMMA. But likewise, they too, if they read this messagboard, should perhaps be ready to acknowledge, that so far in our \"experiment\", it has shown very strong potential for use in penis enlargement. We\'ve now seen so many cases of small lumps/nodules (and the odd case of larger lumps) in the penis from PMMA, that it is fair to say they are reasonably common. From the people I\'ve conversed with, it\'s also obvious that had the lumps occured at a more superfical level, such as within the dermis of the face, they\'d look are feel terrible and be unacceptable. Hence, when US based surgeons say the don\'t like PMMA as they regularly see patients with lumps, then it seems they are probably not exagerating. But any PE surgeon who has followed this messageboard over the past year, would surely have to acknowledge that never before in the history of medical PE has a procedure produced such a high satisfaction rate and such a low complication rate. To date it\'s uttelry blown any procedure performed in the US out of the water.

Now I\'m not saying that, at this early stage, we have anything conclusive regarding the safety and effectiveness of PMMA for use in the penis, but it certainly has earend the right to be followed very carefully over the next few years by US based Dr\'s.

hoddle10 wrote: I think we are now in a better position to understand why so many US based physicians don\'t like PMMA. But likewise, they too, if they read this messagboard, should perhaps be ready to acknowledge, that so far in our \"experiment\", it has shown very strong potential for use in penis enlargement. We\'ve now seen so many cases of small lumps/nodules (and the odd case of larger lumps) in the penis from PMMA, that it is fair to say they are reasonably common. From the people I\'ve conversed with, it\'s also obvious that had the lumps occured at a more superfical level, such as within the dermis of the face, they\'d look are feel terrible and be unacceptable. Hence, when US based surgeons say the don\'t like PMMA as they regularly see patients with lumps, then it seems they are probably not exagerating. But any PE surgeon who has followed this messageboard over the past year, would surely have to acknowledge that never before in the history of medical PE has a procedure produced such a high satisfaction rate and such a low complication rate. To date it\'s uttelry blown any procedure performed in the US out of the water.

Now I\'m not saying that, at this early stage, we have anything conclusive regarding the safety and effectiveness of PMMA for use in the penis, but it certainly has earend the right to be followed very carefully over the next few years by US based Dr\'s.

Agreed. Nothing is conclusive at this point but relative to other PE procedures, it has definitely earned its merit in the short while it has been observed here on the forums.

This thing is still not very known In the hospital setting. I\'ve asked physicians i worked with here about this material and only our orthopedic surgeon actually knew what it was and they use it for totally something else. I know this procedure is still new and very little known by the majority, but its safe to say that is going in the right direction where many of us would like it to go. We\'ve all did our fair share of researching and decided to take the plunge when our benefits has outweighed the risks. I wouldn\'t be surprised it If this thing does go mainstream in the near future by US physicians also with hefty price tag I might add.

I agree with you SO, if the pmma injected conservatively by an expert doctor it will be hard to detect, it will be very difficult to inject pmma in a dynamic organ and to expect 100% natural look ( thats why Artefill is FDA approved only for naso-labial folds and not for the lips (lips have a higher risk of pmma nodules formation ) so lumps and nodules can also happen with the best pmma product \"Artefill\" and not only with the other pmma products if they were injected in the lips or the penis .
IMO Dr. C. is doing a great job in reducing the chance of lumps formation and he has a big challenge to get the best penile aesthetic result.

Even in penile fft injection you can get bad aesthetic result if the penis is overfilled with fft you can have hard nodules, lumps and even severe penile deformity check this picture in Dr. Sava\'s site :-
www.medical-tourism-in-thailand.com/sava-perovic.htm

I actually advocate a more critical observation and critique of aesthetics of PMMA in the penis. I believe that higher expectations produce better results, eventually. Looking for a higher standard and better end results with PMMA in the penis, IMHO, will in general encourage better services. We need to keep the Dr\'s performing this procedure thriving for perfections in this fairly new journey of PE...

Regarding Nodule formation: I believe I may have what is being referred to as a \'Nodule\'- although I\'m really not sure I would refer to it as such. Mine is at the entry point just behind the glans. I had glans entry canula insertion. It is not readily visible unless Erect and one is feeling for it. It resembles a very small vein bulge. I don\'t view it as remotely bothersome or problematic. I assume is will dissipate over time, but am not really concerned either way. this discussion has lead me to question the insertion point if I do have another procedure (it has been strongly suggested not to enter from the glans by some veteran members). I believe this consideration is very specific to each individual as I believe mine resulted in a very good aesthetic with modest gains. I personally think that \'cauterization\' is not a good idea unless medically necessary, and likely only ensures a scar. I personally consider nodules \'normal\' and reasonable, especially if they characteristically dissipate with time or can be diminished with a Kenalog shot. the only real debate or question I see here is long term efficacy and permanence. Many veterans of the procedure report loss, others report none. Seems to me the higher concentrations (30%) have lasting results with less natural feel...? I base that opinion on the observation of other\'s threads. As I move towards the 3 month mark of my first procedure, I am listening and considering all of these concerns with regard to a second procedure. I would greatly value everyone\'s feedback on Nodule formation. Suggestions: start a thread with just pics of Nodule formation and duration/treatment/issues.start a thread of \'nameless\' results with a timeline/number of procedures, and ask for anonymous submissions (perhaps compiled by a moderator?).take up a collection for a \'professional\' lady to meet our top moderators and veterans of procedures, and write a report on her findings and observations of different concentrations/ methods.that last one was tongue in cheek... but give some \'unbiased\' feedback. Thanks again to moderators and administrators for your hard work with this site. Regards T

I am getting old and my memory only serves me well with beautiful women , but it seems that we are having more people mention nodules and bumps now than when this whole thing started with GSXR50 a year ago or so.

Is it possible, just possible that there was/is a batch of PMMA that may have not being manufactured to its standards/quality control? I know from working in the Computer world that it is easy for some bad components to go thru the assembly line and no bad effects on the final product were to be seen for months afterward.