JJ
It seems like a lot of people on this forum prefer the fillers over the fat injections. Any particular reasons why ?

Thanks. 
Quote 0 0
biggy
Because permanent fillers are permanent and temporary fillers are temporary. With fat it's something in between. It's just less predictable. Some people have good long lasting results. Some find the fat absorbs within months. Other find half absorbs and half stays, leaving the penis uneven and lumpy feeling. 
Quote 3 0
JJ
Oh gotcha. So was thinking of getting the permanent filler with this infamous Dr. C in Mexico. 

What i'm curious about is if you get the fillers done when you're flaccid than how would you have an even thicker erection ? Like how does the filler extent when erect ? 

Anyone know ? 
Quote 0 0
aamd82fo
What type of fillers are you thinking of using?
Quote 1 0
JJ
I'm actually thinking of going with a fat transfer instead. The doc said as a bonus he will take the fat from my fat pad (I'm 40lbs over weight) in stead of my hips and use that to make my unit thicker. He said he does something called the Almi procedure where you take the fat and remove the fibrous tissue from the fat, which is what causes the lumps and bumps creating what is called nanofat which is very liquid when in injected into the body , almost completely eliminating the chances of irregularities.

Also fat just seems more natural. Not 100% sure yet. 
Quote 1 0
mato23
I preferred HA because, if something goes wrong or you don't like the result, you can dissolve it.
Quote 2 0
Androfill

Quote:
I'm actually thinking of going with a fat transfer instead. The doc said as a bonus he will take the fat from my fat pad (I'm 40lbs over weight) in stead of my hips and use that to make my unit thicker. He said he does something called the Almi procedure where you take the fat and remove the fibrous tissue from the fat, which is what causes the lumps and bumps creating what is called nanofat which is very liquid when in injected into the body , almost completely eliminating the chances of irregularities. Also fat just seems more natural. Not 100% sure yet.


Nanofat?? This is new, which doctor?
This main issue is already explained above > "Other find half absorbs and half stays, leaving the penis uneven and lumpy feeling. "


It doesn't matter how well the fat is filtered and reinjected, only some of the fat will revascularize, leaving areas where the fat has survived and areas where it hasn't (lumps).
If a fat transfer to the penis was a predictable procedure with positive outcomes, then most would be doing it, rather than using fillers.

Quote 1 0
JJ
Androfill wrote:



Nanofat?? This is new, which doctor?
This main issue is already explained above > "Other find half absorbs and half stays, leaving the penis uneven and lumpy feeling. "


It doesn't matter how well the fat is filtered and reinjected, only some of the fat will revascularize, leaving areas where the fat has survived and areas where it hasn't (lumps).
If a fat transfer to the penis was a predictable procedure with positive outcomes, then most would be doing it, rather than using fillers.



Yes, nanofat. 

Read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23783059

It's Dr. Roba in Fairfax, VA. He said what determines evenness is technique when it’s being injected and if it’s nano fat or still has fibrous structures attached to the fat.


Quote 1 0
Androfill
Quote:
Yes, nanofat. 

Read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23783059

It's Dr. Roba in Fairfax, VA. He said what determines evenness is technique when it’s being injected and if it’s nano fat or still has fibrous structures attached to the fat.


It is a 2013 study.
If he was having reliable results with penis enlargement using this method I would expect it to have become very popular by now and to be widely used, including in other areas of the body.

Where and how much fat revascularizes is mostly arbitrary, predictability is the problem.
Quote 1 1
biggy
JJ wrote:


Yes, nanofat. 

Read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23783059

It's Dr. Roba in Fairfax, VA. He said what determines evenness is technique when it’s being injected and if it’s nano fat or still has fibrous structures attached to the fat.





From that study:

"Nanofat grafting was performed in 67 cases to correct superficial rhytides, scars, and dark lower eyelids. "

So we are talking about 1cc or less. In the penis around 50cc would be used. Fat revascularization and lump/nodule/cyst formation rates simply aren't comparable.
Quote 0 0
JJ
biggy wrote:



From that study:

"Nanofat grafting was performed in 67 cases to correct superficial rhytides, scars, and dark lower eyelids. "

So we are talking about 1cc or less. In the penis around 50cc would be used. Fat revascularization and lump/nodule/cyst formation rates simply aren't comparable.


Ya buddy i don't know the specifics but when i googled nanofat there is tons of good articles. Looks legit to me. 
Quote 1 0
JJ
Androfill wrote:


If he was having reliable results with penis enlargement using this method I would expect it to have become very popular by now and to be widely used, including in other areas of the body.



Lot's of doctors are using it for penis enhancement, just google it. 
Quote 0 0
Androfill
Quote:
Lot's of doctors are using it for penis enhancement, just google it.


https://www.mrferrando.com/cosmetic-surgery/nanofat-or-nanograft/
It looks messy and manual to me compared to LipiVage. They are centrifuging the fat, it does not look like a process that conserves cell integrity.
Even with the purest fat handled with care, fat revascularisation is arbitrary, it is not predictable. It can all survive together in clusters. 

Here Nano fat is equated with micro-fat grafting.
https://www.cosmedicalclinic.gr/en/plastic-surgery/nano-fat-grafting/
I am certain this is just marketing.

If there is something to it there many great reports and these clinics must be hugely successful by now.
Quote 1 1
JJ
Androfill wrote:


https://www.mrferrando.com/cosmetic-surgery/nanofat-or-nanograft/

It looks messy and manual to me when I compare this to LipiVage. They are centrifuging the fat, it does not look like a process that conserves cell integrity.

Here they say Nano fat is micro-fat grafting.
https://www.cosmedicalclinic.gr/en/plastic-surgery/nano-fat-grafting/

I am pretty certain this is just marketing.
If not, there must be many great reports then and these clinics must be hugely successful by now?


Ya not too sure but when i'm sure if it wasn't working there would be some negative reviews with this certain doc. He's supposed to be pretty good. I'm still learning and doing my research. 

This a quote from his email when i asked: 

"There are no guarantees you won’t get lumps or bumps , but the only reason I got into this is when I found there was a procedure called the Almi procedure where you take the fat and remove the fibrous tissue from the fat, which is what causes the lumps and bumps creating what is called nanofat which is very liquid when in injected into the body , almost completely eliminating the chances of irregularities, If done right."
Quote 1 0
Androfill
Quote:
Ya not too sure but when i'm sure if it wasn't working there would be some negative reviews with this certain doc. He's supposed to be pretty good. I'm still learning and doing my research.


I am sorry but this is just fat transfer, there is nothing special about Nano-fat, it is marketing.
Fat transfer to the penis does not work well. That is why everyone is looking for alternatives on here.
Quote 1 1