think wrote: See Dr. Alter's comment that I referenced. The benefit of
Ellanse regarding that particular concern is that it will be gone in 4 years time. I follow your logic with complications arising in the first year, but I don't see why you can't see the benefit of
Ellanse in that regard.
And I read 3 of the 4 papers that you listed on biofilms. That applies to all fillers, and is not a reason to opt for
PMMA over
Ellanse. Also, it's not like you only have the
Ellanse clinical studies to go by, as
PCL has a 40 year history of safety in biomedical applications and FDA approval. I'm sure that physicians like Dr. Oats and Dr.
Morganstern, who are concerned with safety, took that into account before they started offering it. The credentials from
Morganstern's practice include a chief
Urologist at a leading teaching university. They tend to know how to do medical research.
Dr Alter didn't say anything we didn't already know or worry about. He wasn't revealing anything, just cautioning. I was just saying that in studies done on fillers, the majority of complications are reported in years 1-5 and not beyond. Most complications occur in the first year. That's also what we've observed from
PhalloBoards over the last 7 years. So the point I was making is that we don't actually have any real evidence of late onset complications of
PMMA in large volumes, beyond one year. Where this get interesting is that it's postulated that fillers are far less likely to react when injected under the dermis, than actually into it, due to far fewer immune cells. This probably explains why we'e seen so few complications.
The relevance of the biofilm studies isn't to compare
PMMA and
Ellanse directly, but to highlight the school of thought that these late reactions are due to biofilm infections. If you have a biofilm infection they can be impossible to treat. The advantage of
HA is that you can dissolve the filler and then treat the infection. You can't do that with either
Ellanse or
PMMA. You can't just leave the infection either, so intervention is required, hence the "advantage"
Ellanse being temporary is negated. Now I totally understand your point that with
Ellanse you only have to worry about this for 4 years, but after that time, most people are still likely to want a bigger penis and will have to have it filled again. It's hugely unlikely that something that offers the same benefits as
PMMA or
Ellanse is going to come along in the next 10 years. On top of that, late onset of granulomas reaction from
PMMA, in the penis, seems to be totally absent in the literature and from all the cases we have here. In short I don't think we've ever encountered an issue with
PMMA, that required a dramatic intervention, that came after the life span of
Ellanse products.
But I totally understand your point about hoping something better comes along in the future and therefore you like the fact
Ellanse lasts only 4 years. Also Reklaw does make the point that for teenagers and younger men, a stop gap option may suit them. But I think there is little chance of anything in the next 10 or so.
Ultimately, if these late onset reactions are caused by biofilms that get in at the time of injection, any non reversible procedure that requires redoing every few years, is probably more risky than a one off permanent procedure (i know people keep going back for more and more but that's a choice), unless you only do it once and then decide you don't want it again.
