TOPIC: The ultimate guide to girth enhancement with fillers (Ellansè, Voluma, etc)

Hi All,

I have seen granuloma with HA - resolved with hyalase and steroid injections.

Apparently Ellanse E has been discontinued. I have never seen the results of Ellanse go away even over 4 yrs. That does not mean it is permanent but we are still learning what it can do. I think we posted a link to a paper that was researching the 1 yr version (from memory) and in biopsied 18+ months later the filler was still present. So I think they have been very conservative with their dates. I have not, but would like to try, using the 1 yr version (because it is way cheaper) and then follow it to see it it ends up lasting 5 years anyway!

Thanks Dr. Oates. Do you recall if they were able to determine how much of it was left?

Hyperbol wrote: Thanks Dr. Oates. Do you recall if they were able to determine how much of it was left?

Actually they were using M - the 2 yr version and it was still there after 4 years. At 1 year they looked the same as at 2 weeks but at 4 years, double their supposed duration, they were smaller, rough (from smooth spheres) and most were 'cleaved' seeming to mean slit in half.

Changes in Dermal Thickness in Biopsy Study of Histologic Findings After a Single Injection of Polycaprolactone-Based Filler into the Dermis
Jong Seo Kim, MD
Aesthetic Surgery Journal
2019, Vol 39(12) NP484–NP494

This is a very interesting article. It is surprising that a material that supposedly should be absorbed in a certain time frame is still present. Why?? That is the question. The concerning element is now the smooth round spheres have become rough and misshapen. Hasn’t research shown particles that are round and smooth form less nodules and granulomas. Dr Oates, have there been any studies that show PMMA over time becomes worn and misshapen as well?
Dr Oates, do you feel the change in shape and size of the Ellanse particles may be a point of concern.

Toothman wrote: This is a very interesting article. It is surprising that a material that supposedly should be absorbed in a certain time frame is still present. Why?? That is the question. The concerning element is now the smooth round spheres have become rough and misshapen. Hasn’t research shown particles that are round and smooth form less nodules and granulomas. Dr Oates, have there been any studies that show PMMA over time becomes worn and misshapen as well?
Dr Oates, do you feel the change in shape and size of the Ellanse particles may be a point of concern.

Excellent questions, I'm wondering the same. Awaiting responses by Dr. Oates.

Is it true that Ellanse has higher risk of complications than PMMA as stated earlier in this thread? Can anyone cite any literature about this? I just found a study from Casavantes stating that 50% of PMMA patients experience complications over a 7 year period which is already high enough to make me think this is not a good idea. If Ellanse is even higher than that, I'm kind of amazed anyone is offering it let alone doing it.

I have questioned dr Oates about article and some specific details. He has yet to respond.

Toothman wrote: I have questioned dr Oates about article and some specific details. He has yet to respond.

He was on just two days ago. Sponsors answer multiple inquiries at no cost to you, the reader. Sponsors (with sometimes very busy schedules) log-in at varying frequencies, sometimes taking weeks to post a forum reply... I'd recommend some patience if it's a direct response you're looking for.

Also, we've now implemented the tagging system we used to have at PhalloBoards 2.0 @Toothman , try using it to improve visibility.

Dr Oates wrote: Hi All,

I have seen granuloma with HA - resolved with hyalase and steroid injections.

Such reaction, though uncommon, may occur particularly with long lasting fillers and not noticeable immediately after injection: they may develop weeks after the injection and often persist for months after their onset due to a delayed immunological response or delay in recognition of something occurring deeper in the tissues.
For this reason I believe that the choice of the right HA is mandatory especially when treating an uncommon site like the penis, and to be even safer, to test it in an other area and wait to see how the individual react to the specific product before using it into the shaft.

Dr_Oates wrote:

Hyperbol wrote: Thanks Dr. Oates. Do you recall if they were able to determine how much of it was left?

Actually they were using M - the 2 yr version and it was still there after 4 years[/b]. At 1 year they looked the same as at 2 weeks but at 4 years, double their supposed duration, they were smaller, rough (from smooth spheres) and most were 'cleaved' seeming to mean slit in half....

"the 2 yr version and it was still there after 4 years"
This sounds great if the product remains consistent....

"they were smaller, rough (from smooth spheres) and most were 'cleaved' seeming to mean slit in half".
...however, does this mean that the product breaks down unevenly in the shaft, making the penis lumpy and uneven?
I also look forward to hearing more about this.
....I'm going to do some research.

Liberati wrote:

Dr_Oates wrote:

Hyperbol wrote: Thanks Dr. Oates. Do you recall if they were able to determine how much of it was left?

Actually they were using M - the 2 yr version and it was still there after 4 years[/b]. At 1 year they looked the same as at 2 weeks but at 4 years, double their supposed duration, they were smaller, rough (from smooth spheres) and most were 'cleaved' seeming to mean slit in half....

"the 2 yr version and it was still there after 4 years"
This sounds great if the product remains consistent....

"they were smaller, rough (from smooth spheres) and most were 'cleaved' seeming to mean slit in half".
...however, does this mean that the product breaks down unevenly in the shaft, making the penis lumpy and uneven?
I also look forward to hearing more about this.
....I'm going to do some research.

No - the breakdown of the product does not make it lumpy. They start at 40 microns ie 40/1000th of a mm or 0.04mm and then splitting to 0.02mm. Lumps come from putting a pile of these tiny Balls in one spot and the collagen that it brings.

I wanted to bump this post. While it isn't a comprehensive list, it's a great post from a contributing member.

I've also attached an easy-to-digest list of common penile fillers for newer members (click on photo to fit to screen):

I'm particularly interested in the Ellanse filler, as the longer lasting results are definitely a draw for me. However, the fact that it can't be dissolved in case of problems and has a higher risk of lumps and granulomas is definitely something to consider. It's also good to see information on HA fillers like Juvaderm Voluma and Belotero, and the fact that they can be dissolved if needed.

Ollivia wrote: I'm particularly interested in the Ellanse filler, as the longer-lasting results are definitely a draw for me. However, the fact that it can't be dissolved in case of problems and has a higher risk of lumps and granulomas is definitely something to consider. If you are interested in this topic, you can learn more about it through rawbeautyaesthetics.com/services/filler-...n-woodland-hills-ca/ . I also appreciate the cautionary notes about the potential for migration and the need for multiple treatments.

While Ellanse can provide long-lasting results, it does come with some risks. As you mentioned, it cannot be dissolved like other types of fillers, which means that any problems or complications may be more challenging to correct. Ellanse also has a higher risk of lumps and granulomas, which are small bumps that can form under the skin.