This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Victor A. Politano, MD
University of Miami School of Medicine

JAMA. 1985;254(14):1902.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

I read the article by Malizia et al¹ with more than a passing interest, since I initiated the concept and described the technique of polytef injection for urinary incontinence.²

It is common knowledge that any injected particle, whether polytef or charcoal, will migrate to regional nodes and distant places. We observed this in our initial studies in dogs and again in later studies in guinea pigs in which migration of polytef paste, floc, and microstrands were compared. All materials migrated in varying amounts. The issue, then, is not the migration of particles, for they indeed do migrate. The issue is whether the particles that remain at the injection site, or that migrate, produce any harm. Prosthetic devices, such as penile implants, artificial sphincters, valves, and vessel replacements are being used in increasing numbers. There is a constant reaction between the prosthetic device and adjacent tissue . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?