TOPIC: It's pmma or nothing ?

As far as I know there are 5 members who have had FFT on the board. 2 of them have decided to add PMMA and the other 3 are unhappy with their FFT results. I recently tired having mine removed and have been left with more problems than when I still had the lumpy remaining fat. I'm yet to come across a Dr who has consistent results with any type of fat transfer. If a Dr was getting consistent results then they'd be extremely wealthy as they'd have found the ultimate solution for soft tissue fillers and the likes of Restylane etc would become obsolete.

I would say that there seems to be some good stories with manual streching but I have to admit I never gained anything from it. (but I wasnt as dedicated as some)

FFT is one option which I took and I am now post rd one for PMMA. Its early days but PMMA it is for me.

Uptownblk...Considering all the bad stories I have hear versus almost none (some not overly happy but nothing compared to some elitst stories you read about) for PMMA. I would go PMMA if you are going down the surgery route.

@just

My first round of PMMA is on august 12th and I'm very excited. It's time that I deal with the pe issue head on instead of posting on boards which just intensify my aggrevation. I have been reading anything and everything I can find on PMMA to make an educated decision. But frankly I have been so impressed with sizemics and others results that refuse to wait any longer. Maybe I should start a thread regarding the preparation and what things one should do to prepare.

@mikehok
That's quite the question and for certain it's not an easy one to answer. A relative newbie to PE and recent in PhalloBoards I did spend an inordinate amount of time during the past couple of months researching the subject. My conclusions are that yes, PMMA is for now the only sure fire immediate substantial improvement for Girth with moderate to zero risks. There are many other options out there and each either takes a lot of time and is uncertain in outcome, or else comes with an assortment of drawbacks which could make us reconsider.
FFT is safe, is costly due to the need to monitor and "refill", and results is what some report to be a somewhat squishy Erection. Lengthening leaves scars, is only good for flacid, and even carries risks of shortening by retraction. Grafts are more extensive surgery with infection and rejection issues plus detectability. Resorbable fillers tend to give a minor increase while gradually diminishing until vanishing completely. Manual PE carries with it risks of injury as well as extremely time consuming efforts at all sorts of exotic penis manipulations. Chemical PE is like playing witch doctor with your body chemistry, carrying risks ranging in the worst cases from cancer to infertility. Using extenders, weights, pumps each carry their own promise, and for lengthening remain our best bet even if it takes 6 months to several years. That leaves PMMA at the top of the list, offering woman pleasing Girth of consequent dimensions, at a feasible price and with lasting results. So I will agree PMMA is the solution of choice today, especially if one seeks immediate remedy.
HC

smartman wrote: @MikehokYou are going to love it , but the only bad thing about it is you are going to look at and hold your penis most of the time (you can not stop it) lol .

I would second that! haha you really can't stop it

@Dd71 and EQstudent.

I do think that PMMA in terms of feel (heavier and even less retraction) is better than FFT and there are other advantages too. But FFT done correctly has no effect on how hard your Erection is especially if you go with a modest gain. I got 1 Inch Flaccid and 0.5-07 average EG with FFT. IF you dont mind the quarterly trips for a 20 min top and the 150 usd (converted)fee then I have nothing against.

I went with PMMA for a few reasons one is simply that I am constantly lean and I have to bulk up for 8 weeks before lipo to harvest the fat and then spend 10 weeks getting rid of it. I have to do this every 18 months! However if it was the only option I owuld keep doing it and be very happy!

@mikehok - you make a very good point. I have not seen many Erect FFT or alloderm pics but have seen numerous flacids. I will change my result ratings.

eqstudent wrote:

mikehok wrote: As I've started elsewhere , my belief is, given all the available techniques for Girth enlargement, that PMMA is the only real option. And furthermore if you decide against PMMA you may as well forget the whole thing and get on with your life now...

That may be true for your goals and risk profile but not everyone is as much of a risk taker as you are!I see the procedures this way from a risk/cost perspective:

Code:

Product procedure short term mid term long term cost FFT low low low low medium Artefill low medium medium medium medium NewPlastic low medium medium high low Alloderm high high low low high Belladerm high high low low high Repriza high high low low high Dermal high high low low high Elist high high low low high Scaffold high high high low high

Conservative FFT (0.75') with touchups every 4 months if needed is the lowest risk procedure IMO and there is a doctor 20 minutes from my house that has had great results with that procedure!

I'm not sure the Elist implant necessarily gets better with risk over time. As Peter (and others who have PM'ed me) have shown, problems can arise outside the downtime suggested by the doctor.
Also curious, why would FFT receive an upgrade in risk in the long term?
And how does New Plastic get a High rating when its long term prospects are just as cloudy as Artefills? Does Artefill get a Medium upgrade and New Plastic a High upgrade based solely on inconclusive bead purity? Just wondering. I call it inconclusive because a member mentioned there was an undisclosed report (undisclosed to us, at least) which implied the purity of New Plastic being a lot more similar to Artefill than contended by the previous articles that have been discussed on this forum. I think I'll discuss that with Dr. C on my 2nd round too.
Just curious, thanks.

Revised my post above: I rank the options from a risk/cost/result satisfaction perspective: Procedure: ranks the risk of the actual procedure as low, medium, or high. Risk short: ranks the short term risk which I define as < 180 days.Risk mid: ranks the medium term risk which I define as < 3 years.Risk long: ranks the short term risk which I define as >3 years.Cost: ranks the total cost of the procedure. < $5K is low, $5K to $10K is medium > $10K is highResult: ranks the satisfaction with the outcome from my perspective. This is totally subjective based on my standard which is does the unit look or feel like 'something' has been done to it. Product procedure Risk short Risk mid Risk long Cost ResultFFT medium low low low medium goodArtefill low low medium medium medium NANewPlastic low medium medium high low goodAlloderm high high low low high goodBellaDerm high high low low high excellentRepriza high high low low high NADermal high high low low high poorElist high high medium low high poorScaffold very high high low low high poor Key PointsSurgical procedures are always ranked as high especially if general anesthesia is required. IIRC the risk of death from general is 1 in 50,000! I have ranked the short term risks of the allografts, dermal graft, and scaffolds has high due mainly to the risk of infection and the risk of the grafts. After that the risks are extremely low. The Artefill medium and long term risks are ranked as medium due to the incidences of long term granuloma formation. The Newplastic short term risk is ranked medium due to lump granuloma formation. IIRC 2 members out of our small sample size have had to be treated with anti-inflammatory steroids and anti-inflammatory plus 5FU which is an anti cancer drug. The Newplastic long term risk is ranked high based on 2 studies including the article titled 'The Polymethylmethacrylate Effects on Auricle Conchal Cartilage: Report of 21 Cases' by Caldellas et al which showed phagocytosis in all 21 patients and some tissue degeneration and mild skin reaction in one patient.Those are my thoughts. I welcome comments and opinions from other members. EDIT 7-20-11: changed FFT procedure to medium risk to account for the required liposuction.

mikehok wrote: As I've started elsewhere , my belief is, given all the available techniques for Girth enlargement, that PMMA is the only real option. And furthermore if you decide against PMMA you may as well forget the whole thing and get on with your life now...

That may be true for your goals and risk profile but not everyone is as much of a risk taker as you are!I see the procedures this way from a risk/cost perspective: Conservative FFT (0.75') with touchups every 4 months if needed is the lowest risk procedure IMO and there is a doctor 20 minutes from my house that has had great results with that procedure!

there are natural exercises and devices you can explore. but it takes time and dedication. some people gain faster than others and if you give it 6 months everyday you can see gains. but like i said if you cant dedicate time and a positive attitude towards it, dont even bother. i believe PMMA is a more attractive option because of the convenience and the short amount of time it takes to get gains.

@Dd71 - I asked justabitmore who had FFT about squishy fell and he did not agree. Maybe I misunderstood him. The doctor I spoke to said based on expectations of 0.75" or less in Girth there would be no difference in Erection feel.

Everyone has to prioritize the risks for themselves which was my only point.

I certainly respect your view on risks and costs. I will change Artefill cost to high since the quote I got was $8,000 for 20cc if the local doctor agreed to do it.

I would love to see your breakdown.

From my reading PMMA seems to be the best option for now and it seems less risky. Ive been researching PE on and off for years but never really found anything that didnt leave scars or have a high chance of infection. That does not mean that PMMA is golden without problems but so far from my reading I havent found any. And this board has so much information and Im so glad I found it because I had been considering the elist implant.

yes but the results from FFT are not optimal, you will have a soft Erection. Trying to satisfy your name, im sure you want a hard Erection. The complications from PMMA, are easy to deal with.....look at EP for example. He had extreme gains and complications followed( keep in mind nothing diblitating like the elist implant or infection) a couple of shots and in days the ailements subsided. I have to agree to diagree with you on your risk and cost breakdown. Artefill is mucho denaro!!! But if you feel comfortable, thats all that counts!!!!

At this point in time, yes I'd have to agree. Its just the safest thing out there RIGHT NOW.