Does the nipple procedure have as many problems?

[Kk]

I'm writing this in the hope that someone with a wider knowledge on the subject may be able to help me since I only check the board from my freinds house every few days (currently no net at home - v painful) and every time I come I read about Levick patients going for follow ups, soreness and inflamation several weeks even months into recovery, etc.

However there doesn't seem to be as much discussion of such problems in the US boards, at least not from when I used to check the boards daily, and they all seem to have the op via the nipple...

I would appreciate it if any of Karidis' patients could just chip in and let me know how their recovery was, I have a consultation with Levick next week but like any man witha business I am sure he is going to tell me his prodedure is as good as the nipple one...

[phantom]

Hello Kk

First off, I think you are wise to 'shop around' with more than one surgeon.

Muffraid I too am a Levick patient - after extensive research I'd like to add.

I personally don't think it is a question of the areola (nipple) procedure is as good/better/worse than armpit-crease incision.  It is by far down to the skill of the surgeon.

The armpit-crease is less popular for two reasons.  Firstly it is relatively newer, so fewer surgeons are trained up on this technique.  Secondly, I have read that this method requires more skill and judgement to get a good result.  So if you have a highly skill and experienced surgeon, yes each method is as good as the other.  What you don't want is an 'areola' surgeon that does less than a handful of male patients a year and the rest of the time is dealing with female surgical issues.

The best people to ask of course are the surgeons you will be visiting.  I'd be suspicious if any surgeon claims their preferred technique is better without giving a good reason.  I personally preferred the idea of armpit as it gave less risk of visible scaring and less risk of 'nipple death'.  The latter I'd like to add is VERY rare.  As for scaring, as I say a good surgeon will know how to cut to minimise visible scaring and from what I have seen, after a few months, nipple scaring isn't really significant enough to cause concern.

As for swelling, soreness and inflammation, I'd guess that at least half the guys in the UK section of this forum use Mr Levick.  So obviously you will be reading all about their post-op issues.  Every kind of male chest procedure is invasive and traumatic to the skin and surrounding tissues.  I don't think one could really qualify which method is less painful or causes less post-operative healing issues.  Healing comes down to two things.  Firstly your own body's ability to deal with swelling, bruising, swelling etc - each and everyone is different and healing rates vary widely.  Secondly, once again it comes down to the skill of the surgeon.

Mr Levick claimed to me for example, the risk of hematoma (blood collecting under the skin post-op that needs to be flushed/drained) is generally around one in ten.  He reports a prevalence of around one in twenty in his patients.

Ultimately, it's for you to decide who you think is most up for the job and gives you most confidence in your own personal result expectations.

Hope that helps.