Penile Reconstruction after Polymethilmetacrylate Injection| Stephy Publishers

 


Modern Research in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - (MRPRS) | Stephy Publishers

Abstract

Rising number of aesthetic procedures in men directed to enhance genitalia has alerted the medical community due to several complications related to them. Most of those procedures are performed in an office under local anesthesia using different kind of substances, most of them known to be harmful for humans; still, patients seek those procedures as a “safe” way to meet their goals. We present a reconstruction case due to Polymethilmetacrylate injection for penile enhancement.

Keywords

Penile, Reconstruction, Polymethilmetacrylate

Case Report

It isn’t new nor a recent practice of several so called “easy”, “in and out office” enhancing procedures. History of adjuvant substances such as petroleum jelly (liquid Vaseline) date back 1886 reported by Balzer1 used to correct a scrotal deformity caused by tuberculosis infection, he described the complications caused by its use. Polymethylmethacrylate (PMM) has been widely accepted in orthopedic surgery since Judet2 introduced the first hip prosthesis made from PMM. As PMM in orthopedic surgery is considered highly biocompatible, in 1996 McClelland et al.,3 evaluated its use as Soft-Tissue augmentation, in their animal study, they found that PMM implant did not appear to be a useful alternative for soft-tissue augmentation; they described that Artecoll (a brand of PMM) is difficult to extrude, even though through a large 27-gauge needle, moreover, all implant sites showed an increasing inflammatory reaction over time.

Grassi et al.,4 reported complications of PMM use as aesthetic soft-tissue filler in 32 patients, although PMM is widely used in Brazil for face and body enhancement, most of the patients showed complications 6 to 12 months after the procedure and even years later, implant site might get a chronic inflammatory reaction. The appearance of symptoms may differ according to the site of injection, type of the substance, quantity and patient inherent immune response.5 Treatment can become challenging due to material migration and increasing risk of an autoimmune response that may continue even after removing the forieng material.6–8 The majority of cases will show skin compromise even after removing the substance, for that reason, some patients can get a greater benefit if treatment is directed not only to remove the underlying substance but replacing the skin by using different cutaneous flaps or skin grafts.7,9

There is an increasing industry that claims a risk free penile enhancement that lacks scientific support. Despite the increasing number of complications reported in medical literature, physicians and non medical practitioners still use PMM for penile augmentation. A 32 year old man was referred to my office due to PMM injection of twelve syringes for penile augmentation; the original procedure was performed by an Urologist at his office three years before his consultation, 2 years later the patient noticed an increasing penile deformity due to severe fibrosis accompanied with erectile problems and an increasing urination difficulty, the patient was treated by a plastic surgeon that managed the complication by removing all the affected tissue including the skin. To give temporal coverage, he covered the entire phallus with scrotal skin, leaving exposed the unaffected glands.


To read more #
ReconstructiveSurgery
https://www.stephypublishers.com/mrprs/fulltext/MRPRS.MS.ID.000505.php


#Openaccessjournals
https://www.stephypublishers.com/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Journal of Psychological Science and Research - (JPSSR) | Stephy Publishers