TOPIC: Any experience with Texas Phalloplasty?

There was a brief progress report by someone who visited this center found at the old forum: phalloplasty.proboards.com/index.cgi?boa...n=display&thread=317
It's too bad he discontinued his updates, hope he returns!
It appears the place offers both PRP-FFT and Alloderm, though I'm not as familiar with Dr. Capriotti.

The staged PRP-FFT method seems to be safest non-permanent Girth solution, I know Dr. Giunta on the East Coast offers a similar procedure.

@ EQ, I concur with Mike on this one. We were both members of MSN and there were certainly plenty of bad stories on allo/bell derm.
Of course in some cases it has worked well but from a safety point of view pmm and FFT would from my limited experience be the only sensible options.

I thought the other day...what would I tell my son (he hasn't and for a 6 weeks old boy he appears normal lol) if he asked me knowing that he would definititely do it no matter if I tried to talk him out of it. The answer is PMMA.

@eq- Sorry if I ask you this Q. , please dont take it personal :-
Why did you mention Alloderm ???
As far as I remember you have mentioned before ( in the thread "it's PMMA or nothing") in your opinion Alloderm has a high risk in the short period (<180 days) ?? Are you not worried about the high risk any more.

eqstudent wrote: @hoddle10 ' thanks for your opinion. I don't believe I am operating on any 'gut feeling'. I am trying to do detailed analysis of the viable options as I see them. I do believe there are other viable options than Newplastic injections see my options here phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...401713&postcount=16I am not sure why you included FFT in the surgery category. IIMU that it is an injectable filler option much like Newplastic or Artefill. Am I mistaken? I have stated in the past that I see all the PE procedure options as investigational or experimental. There are no safe procedures, everyone needs to weigh the risks against their own personal situation.

I read your analysis before and it's largelly what I based my opinion on. I couldn't agree with many of your rankings and it seemed as if you'd already made up your mind and your chart reflected what you wanted to be the case. For example, you have the scaffold as higher risk than any of the dermal matrix products, which doesn't make much sense. But in general my concern is that you are largelly basing your decision by evaluating the materials used and not the overall chance of success. I understand why, for example, you'd see fat as a safer option than PMMA. However, my worry is that you are under estimating the devestating effects of an unsatisfactory procedure. Fat is a safer injectable than PMMA for sure, but the question I think you need to ask yourself, is which procedure is more likely to give you a better result and which is more likely to badly effect your life?

Basically what i'm saying is that side effects such as granulomas etc aren't all you need to worry about. I can't begin to explain the mental devestation that happens to a guy when he see's his penis is deformed, be it by uneven, lumpy, soft fat or necrosis, or material rejection, or scarring or shortening. Results with all of these procedures are very unpredictable to say the least and the percentage of unhappy patients is something unheard of in any other plastic surgery procedure I've come across. The reason I specifically singled you out is because in another thread you said you considered a 1.4% risk with an injectable too much, which immediately made me wonder if you were fully aware of just how frequently the surgical options go badly wrong.

FFT is definitely surgery. Liposuction on it's own is surgery. There was a member of MNS called Idbravheart who suffered necrosis as a result of FFT surgery. His photos are actually on Dr Solomons site, but they don't show the full extent of the damage.

hoddle10 wrote: 'I couldn't agree with many of your rankings and it seemed as if you'd already made up your mind and your chart reflected what you wanted to be the case.

Incorrect. The chart was my way of presenting my current thinking. If you have been following the thread you should see that I have already changed cells based on opinions from Dd71, justabitmore, Skeptical One, and mikehok. I have presented detail on my thinking/analysis and asked for, welcome, and incorporated feedback.

hoddle10 wrote: 'For example, you have the scaffold as higher risk than any of the dermal matrix products, which doesn't make much sense.

I ranked scaffolds higher risk because it carries the same or slightly higher surgical risks as the allografts plus the scaffolds/tissue engineering piece is highly experimental with few actual successes while the allografts particularly Alloderm have 20+ years of successful procedures all over the body and is standard for burn replacement, breast reconstruction, gum replacement and hernia surgery amongst others.

hoddle10 wrote: 'Basically what i'm saying is that side effects such as granulomas etc aren't all you need to worry about. I can't begin to explain the mental devestation that happens to a guy when he see's his penis is deformed, be it by uneven, lumpy, soft fat or necrosis, or material rejection, or scarring or shortening'

Since this seems to be about why I haven't chosen Newplastic (PMMA) I believe that most of the complications you cite have occurred in the face of PMMA patients just check realself or makemeheal sites. See also the independent studies I have cited.

hoddle10 wrote: 'The reason I specifically singled you out is because in another thread you said you considered a 1.4% risk with an injectable too much, which immediately made me wonder if you were fully aware of just how frequently the surgical options go badly wrong. '

Incorrect. In this thread the hypothetical 1.4% was referring to Alloderm surgery infection rates not injectables! phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...338552&postcount=113
I also posted this phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5385417 so I am well aware of the risks.

hoddle10 wrote: 'FFT is definitely surgery. Liposuction on it's own is surgery'

You are absolutely right. I completely forgot the lipo component. I will update FFT procedure risk to medium even though I believe lipo is a very low risk procedure and FFT is also a very low risk procedure. Thanks! I think this segment should be moved into the "PMMA or nothing thread".

PMMA ,HA or FFT are only options I would consider

@hoddle10 we will agree to disagree on Scaffolds vs. Alloderm. One important note, the scaffold material (PLGA, ePTFE, ') is more likely to cause a foreign body reaction than Alloderm, remember Alloderm is an Acellular dermal matrix. Also the task of combining one's cells with the scaffold material and ensuring survival and growth is daunting. I am very confident that if you ask 100 surgeons today on the safety of Alloderm vs. Scaffolds all 100 would pick Alloderm. Now in 7 to 10 years that may change. As the CMO of the firm where I work said about the emerging scaffolding opportunity 'let them continue to experiment on people in Eastern Europe and the Far East where no one seems to care'.I am very aware of most of the discussions that took place on the old board so let's leave it at that.I am extremely concerned about the overall complication rate of all these procedures. If you have any links or data on said rates I would very much appreciate you pointing me towards them.I hear you on the FFT. Your extreme caution is noted, heard, and very much appreciated. If there only 3 doctors in the US who doing it that is 3 more than are doing PMMA in the penis!

@mikehok ' the touchups for FFT if needed would not be an issue for me. I agree that Alloderm has a high risk just from the surgery so I would not be surprised that there are bad outcomes. There are also some very good outcomes like soma. I will continue to research.@justabitmore ' Conservative staged FFT is my leading option based in small part on your testimony. I will ask the doctor for 10 to 15 references that I can speak to who have had the procedure.

EQ, FFT I can understand because of it's safety profile. Personally I wouldn't do it because I don't want to do constant top ups and there appears to be some disagreement over the firmness of the result.

But alloderm would concern me, I've heard too many bad stories. it's interesting how we all assess risk in different ways. I think somewhere you described yourself as more risk averse than me and yet you're prepared to consider something I wouldn't. Seems we all have a bias when weighing these things up. After my previous experiences I'm trying to avoid having a scapel anywhere near my Dick and so the idea of a quick in and out with a micro cannula appeals. Each to their own I guess

@hoddle10 ' thanks for your opinion. I don't believe I am operating on any 'gut feeling'. I am trying to do detailed analysis of the viable options as I see them. I do believe there are other viable options than Newplastic injections see my options here phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...401713&postcount=16I am not sure why you included FFT in the surgery category. IIMU that it is an injectable filler option much like Newplastic or Artefill. Am I mistaken? I have stated in the past that I see all the PE procedure options as investigational or experimental. There are no safe procedures, everyone needs to weigh the risks against their own personal situation.

mikehok wrote: I agree with Hoddle. Seems to me that sparticus/eq concentrate their attacks on PMMA and play down the risks with other procedures. I don't know why...

Since you have made an issue with my posts I would like you to find and quote a single post I have made on this or the other site where I have "played down the risks with other procedures".

"You remind me of Sparticus and he couldn't seem to grasp that there simply is no safe option that anyone having this surgery needs to accept this and then make a decision based on the overall risks of the procedure itself and not so much the material being used."
Thank you for your astute observation. I apparently lack the ability to read medical studies, despite my education, and am irrational in concluding that NO procedure has enough evidence to support its efficacy or safety. I will take your advice and just accept the risks and get it done ASAP. Thank you for clearing up what I could not understand on my own.

I agree with Hoddle. Seems to me that sparticus/eq concentrate their attacks on PMMA and play down the risks with other procedures. I don't know why.
The fact is there are risks with ANY procedure. There are different types of risk. Personally I am convinced the risk of a deformed Dick is much greater with alloderm than PMMA.
The death of the Argentine beauty queen following a PMMA procedure is constantly cited. But what does that prove ?
Perhaps we should avoid the dentist since death can occur therehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1358962/Parents-sue-over-death-at-dentists.html
And whatever you do don't have a routine knee ophttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386050/Mia-Amber-Davis-Road-Trip-Actress-plus-size-model-dies-36.html
Surgery to Repair an achilles tendon can be lethalhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/22/former-nfl-player-dies-after-routine-surgery/
The list of deaths from routine surgery is endless. Obviously we need to assess the risk before proceeding with any procedure, but let's at least take a balanced view.

eqstudent wrote:

hoddle10 wrote: 'I couldn't agree with many of your rankings and it seemed as if you'd already made up your mind and your chart reflected what you wanted to be the case.

Incorrect. The chart was my way of presenting my current thinking. If you have been following the thread you should see that I have already changed cells based on opinions from Dd71, justabitmore, Skeptical One, and mikehok. I have presented detail on my thinking/analysis and asked for, welcome, and incorporated feedback.

hoddle10 wrote: 'For example, you have the scaffold as higher risk than any of the dermal matrix products, which doesn't make much sense.

I ranked scaffolds higher risk because it carries the same or slightly higher surgical risks as the allografts plus the scaffolds/tissue engineering piece is highly experimental with few actual successes while the allografts particularly Alloderm have 20+ years of successful procedures all over the body and is standard for burn replacement, breast reconstruction, gum replacement and hernia surgery amongst others.

hoddle10 wrote: 'Basically what i'm saying is that side effects such as granulomas etc aren't all you need to worry about. I can't begin to explain the mental devestation that happens to a guy when he see's his penis is deformed, be it by uneven, lumpy, soft fat or necrosis, or material rejection, or scarring or shortening'

Since this seems to be about why I haven't chosen Newplastic (PMMA) I believe that most of the complications you cite have occurred in the face of PMMA patients just check realself or makemeheal sites. See also the independent studies I have cited.

hoddle10 wrote: 'The reason I specifically singled you out is because in another thread you said you considered a 1.4% risk with an injectable too much, which immediately made me wonder if you were fully aware of just how frequently the surgical options go badly wrong. '

Incorrect. In this thread the hypothetical 1.4% was referring to Alloderm surgery infection rates not injectables! phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post/sho...338552&postcount=113
I also posted this phalloboards.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5385417 so I am well aware of the risks.

hoddle10 wrote: 'FFT is definitely surgery. Liposuction on it's own is surgery'

You are absolutely right. I completely forgot the lipo component. I will update FFT procedure risk to medium even though I believe lipo is a very low risk procedure and FFT is also a very low risk procedure. Thanks! I think this segment should be moved into the "PMMA or nothing thread".

Scaffolds are much safer than Alloderm as they aren't foreign bodies, but using your own cells. The scaffold itself will disolve within 6 months, whilst Alloderm may or may not reabsorb after 2+ years. Also alloderm is grafted, so can cause scarring and shortening and as a foreign body can be rejected encapsulated years later (as happened to the infamous Chad Hedman). In terms of surgical technique I can't see much difference. Alloderm has a much higher chance of getting infected and seeing as the matrix is semi permament it will require removal. The key difference between the two is that Alloderm offers far more consistent results, but as I've pointed out, at a higher risk.

It's not your fault as the threads get so big, so we can't expect people to know what has been discussed before, but many of the studies you've posted were already discussed at length, as were the posts on realself and makemeheal on the old board. The complications I've pointed out that occur in PE surgery which, you've compared with PMMA in the face, but this again has already been spoken about (again i understand that you wouldn't be aware of this.) You can't really compare facial injections of PMMA with penis surgery, but even if you did, complication rates would still be way lower.

Sorry I confused Alloderm and injectables for the 1.4% rate, but the general point I'm making still remains. If a 1.4% infection rate is worrying you, then overall complication rates from these surgeries should cause you much more concern.

As for Texas Phalloplasty you know fat transfer surgery is very easy compared to most plastic surgery procedures and you also know that the demand for penis enlargement in the US is very high. Yet despite this demand and simplicity of procedure I think only 3 Dr's in the entire US do it! You have to ask yourself why this is. And why do they offer both Alloderm and FFT. Alloderm is much more expensive, involves more intensive surgery and yields only modest results. Yet they still offer it. It doesn't make sense they'd offer a more expensive and riskier procedure if they truely believed in the quality of the results they are getting with FFT. I think there are some pretty obvious red flags here in the same way there was when Dr Elist came onto the scene.