Any kind of secondary op on a HA site massively raises infection risk, even if it's a second application of HA. It's not understood why but it's documented in papers.
I believe A&G mix it with something before slapping it on, could it be your own blood or am I seriously off track here...it's something more organic than just the raw stuff iirc.
No one uses the "raw" stuff. Mommaerts mixes it with fibrin and other stuff I can't remember. Arnett and Gunson does do something differently though since they're able to mold the HA for a long time after the surgery.
Also I had a consultation with Dr. van der Dussen who uses HA direct to permanently mould cheeks and he mentioned he mixes it with something to allow him time to shape it before it sets. I can't remember for certain but maybe it was with Bioalcamid (of which I have read very bad reviews from HIV wasting patients online, another quote found there was: ?Most [permanent] soft tissue fillers have not stood the test of time and thus should still be considered experimental.? A later consultation with Dr. Daniel Sim?n (maxfac with Facial Team who worked with van der Dussen) said that they reviewed a few patients who had this HA mix and when they investigated the HA area it was still wet (not sure how long after, whether due to complications or not). Just food for thought on the matter, sorry I can't be more certain but maybe someone could clarify some of this
Indeed, especially when the results are said to be modest at best...was it CK that was less than impressed?
My HA augmentation is definitely very noticable although I don't like it much due to how it was placed.
Anyone has further information regarding this (mixing HA with something)?
I've read the full paper, from memory it's HA both times. I haven't discussed it with Sinn because I'm not planning on getting repeated rounds of HA.
I have heard from both sinn and eppley Hydroxyapatite is a generic term with diff types etc. I'm curious if that plays a factor. did you ask sinn about repeated use and infection?
