never again

I Need Surgery As a Result of Lipodissolve

Point taken. However, FDA approval would at least provide a layer of investigation and documentation. As I am sure that you know, Lamictal and Topamax are back. I believe that makes my point. Regulation and investigation by such an agency provides the American people with the information they need to make "informed" decisions, hence, the risks they are assuming. Personally, I don't rely on the FDA, but I do feel that they do alot of the leg work. They provide me with findings that I cannot obtain on my own. I can take it from there. For me, I agree with you that the hematomas were absolutley a result of the route used to deliver the agent. My problem with the whole delivery system is that when as many as 80 injections are performed, the protection barrier that the skin provides is compromised that many times. In my case, a bout with MRSA. This procedure requires sterile technique at the very least. Secondly, the potential and reality of scarring needs to be addressed. It is uncomfortable and at times painful. Not to mention the redness and rock-hardness of the scarred areas. This "is" from the agent itself. I would consider my results as a "Sentinel Event". I have since had corrective surgery and will need one more at the end of the summer. I remain vigilant in my efforts to urge anyone considering this form of body sculpting, to assume the responsibility of becoming aware of all possible side effects and adverse reactions. Any healthcare provider that offers Lipodissolve must assume the responsibility of providing a "fact sheet" that lists the same. But, this shouldn't be left up to the discretion of the physician and patient. Some type of regulation and standardization needs to be implemented if this procedure continues to be performed. A quick weekend to New York City for "Certification" is not regulation to me.

You may be right. I am still experiencing scarring in the subcutaneous portion. I do know to massage it and the areas are responding. As far as the doctor, it could be ANYONE that performs the injections. I say the injections, the procedure, the vehicle in which the product is introduced, is in and of itself, dangerous. With so much controversy and health issues (i.e. hair loss, temporary loss of vision, and of course what happened to me - which I am aware of others around the country that had the same injury as myself) it should be banned until the FDA can put it's stamp of approval on it. Similar to many oral medications that get pulled from time to time, or product recalls with toys or automobile parts. Not ALL Americans get injured, but when an event is recorded, the potential exists for EVERYONE! I respect your position on Lipodissolve and you are certaily entitled to it. I am not arguing with you, merely trying to clarify my point. I have read the favorable reports and am happy for those people. But as a health professional myself, I cannot turn my head to the amount of injuries I have seen first hand and read about. Like I said before, the same kind of investigation needs to be conducted as in any medication that is introduced to the body that results in health issues. The FDA owes that to the American people. Lipodissolve is an actual medical procedure. If it is going to be practiced, it should at the very least come with literature of the ACTION of the drug(s), side effects, injuries, list the ACTIVE and INACTIVE ingredients, route and dosage, and contraindications. Which, would constitute studies conducted by the FDA. The recipients need to make INFORMED decisions not just "trust" the physician like I did. Shame on me.

Thank-you for your comment. I filed a formal complaint in January as well. I am going to try to find their statement hopefully on-line. Haven't yet, but will keep looking.

I am happy for you that you have had good results and were not injured. I am sending you a detailed description that I hope helps you understand what happened to me. Procedurally, everyone faces the same risk. You and many others did not have your injection sites "infected", but many did. Just like if you and I are exposed to the same cold virus. You get sick with a cold and I don't. I went to a general practioner, a "medical doctor". What happened to me was not a result of the injected product. Immediately after my injections at my second treatment was that I developed hematomas, these are blood blisters. Apparently, the needles pierced subcutaneous capillaries in my abdomen. The hematomas burst, the tissue got infected and the rest is history. The infection uas the culprit. People that read my story need to understand that it doesn't matter what product was injected, and no it was not acid, it was the procedure itself. The delivery of the product, the injections. In all I had 4 hematomas, 2 that were insignificant not to mention in that they healed without incident. Sure the product being injected should be considered, but whatever it is must be delivered by the same route. When a person has a surgical procedure there are inherent risks due to the procedure itself, this is explained in what you sign and acknowledge in your "informed consent" for the surgery. This also applies when you have many, many injections. This "has" happened to other people. Not to everyone, but people must know that the skin is the largest organ of the body. Infection is everywhere, your skin protects you. When you provide an entry portal for the infection you compromise the natural protection barrier your skin provides. I hope this clarifies the confusion and I hope that I have presented the facts in a more understandable way.

I went to a general practioner, a "medical doctor". What happened to me was not a result of the injected product. Immediately after my injections at my second treatment was that I developed hematomas, these are blood blisters. Apparently, the needles pierced subcutaneous capillaries in my abdomen. The hematomas burst, the tissue got infected and the rest is history. The infection uas the culprit. People that read my story need to understand that it doesn't matter what product was injected, and no it was not acid, it was the procedure itself. The delivery of the product, the injections. In all I had 4 hematomas, 2 that were insignificant not to mention in that they healed without incident. Sure the product being injected should be considered, but whatever it is must be delivered by the same route. When a person has a surgical procedure there are inherent risks due to the procedure itself, this is explained in what you sign and acknowledge in your "informed consent" for the surgery. This also applies when you have many, many injections. This "has" happened to other people. Not to everyone, but people must know that the skin is the largest organ of the body. Infection is everywhere, your skin protects you. When you provide an entry portal for the infection you compromise the natural protection barrier your skin provides. I hope this clarifies the confusion and I hope that I have presented the facts in a more understandable way.