losing length and other questions

[2435tjklAS]

It bothers me that "losing size" is such a common (and misleading) statement about implants and I can't tell who understands what's accurate.

Like I’ve said before, implants are like Schroedinger’s cat: according to guys in this forum, implants are simultaneously making our dicks smaller AND bigger!

But when you look at the actual scientific evidence, when properly sized and after a cycling protocol of a year or so, they basically just get us back to the size we were pre-implant.

After a year or so the size is significantly larger than pre-implant. Why? Because "pre-implant" means pre-VED. The patient is often some dude in his 60s with so much fibrosis in his impotent penis that his very weak "erections" are inches less than they were in his good ole days. What you're saying might be right if you are analyzing a group of old dudes who have used VEDs to fully treat or heal their fibrosis then used their post-implant size but practically hardly anyone has done that.

Most impotent 60 year olds don't feel motivated to use a VED 3 times a week for 20 or 30 minutes. But when they start seeking an implant the evidence is very clear quite literally and cited by countless experts that VEDs are necessary to allow surgeons to have space required to match patients with the true size of their penis from its days back as a horny 22-year old. Evidence: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18561&p=169469#p169469

You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:


Pre-implant baseline was 14cm. Post was 17cm, or 1.18 inches. Also....THIS IS IMPORTANT....

That stupid study only had the patients use VED therapy for 6 months and they didn't do shit for the next 6 months, which other evidence claims is the strongest timeframe for when real gains occur, and then they measured them after a year:

“...after 1 year of follow-up from AMS™LGX700® penile prosthesis implant with 6 months of vacuum erectile device therapy.”

“Postoperatively, patients were assigned vacuum device therapy for 5 min twice daily. Follow-up continued for 1 year after surgery.”

This long discussion I had with Discovernew where I didn't discover it was only 6 months of therapy after: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26381&start=30

You said: "when you look at the actual scientific evidence, when properly sized and after a cycling protocol of a year or so, they basically just get us back to the size we were pre-implant."

Link your sources. Good luck.

Conclusion: merely looking at implants as a way for most patients to heal fibrosis already creates significant evidence that VEDs and implants increase the current size of your penis. Certain devices like the LGX that have proven stretch capabilities increases it even further.

[LetoMan]

You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:

Dude. You really should read the study you got your chart from. It clarifies that “baseline” is a stretch test. Preop ICI is the measurement obtained by a preop intercavernous injection of alprostadil. And those numbers are virtually identical 48 months postop. The study authors were entirely clear on this, specifically saying that “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up.”

Translation: THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE.

If you wanted to show why a stretch test is a bad indicator of potential erection size, boom, you found your smoking gun.

Study available here: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d88 ... action.pdf?

[staphylococcusecoli]

You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:

Dude. You really should read the study you got your chart from. It clarifies that “baseline” is a stretch test. Preop ICI is the measurement obtained by a preop intercavernous injection of alprostadil. And those numbers are virtually identical 48 months postop. The study authors were entirely clear on this, specifically saying that “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up.”

Translation: THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE.

If you wanted to show why a stretch test is a bad indicator of potential erection size, boom, you found your smoking gun.

Study available here: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d88 ... action.pdf?

Thank you LetoMan for fishing out the paper. You sound like a genius scientific researcher.

Study Summary (Whatever the heck it means. Size increase or not, folks?)

1. Prospective, two-institution, non-randomized study: 106 enrolled, 32 excluded, and 74 selected/completed follow-up after AMS LGX 700 IPP.

2. Patients activated/cycled the device early, then used VED without constriction ring for 5 minutes twice daily after full inflation; methods state this was for 12 weeks.

3. Median length was 14 cm stretched baseline, 17 cm after pre-op injection, and 17 cm at 48 weeks; final length matched injection-induced pre-op length.

4. Median girth was 9 cm baseline, 11 cm after pre-op injection, and 11 cm at 48 weeks; IIEF-5 improved from 9 to 25 at 1 year.

5. Main limitation: no randomized control arm, so results suggest feasibility/satisfaction but do not prove VED caused the improvements.

[LetoMan]

Study Summary (Whatever the heck it means. Size increase or not, folks?)

Ummm. What part of “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up” makes your brain hurt?

[2435tjklAS]

You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:

Dude. You really should read the study you got your chart from. It clarifies that “baseline” is a stretch test. Preop ICI is the measurement obtained by a preop intercavernous injection of alprostadil. And those numbers are virtually identical 48 months postop. The study authors were entirely clear on this, specifically saying that “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up.”

Translation: THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE.

If you wanted to show why a stretch test is a bad indicator of potential erection size, boom, you found your smoking gun.

Study available here: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d88 ... action.pdf?

First my position from the start was the important and easily provable claim that with proper recovery implants do NOT cause a loss of penis size and that claim is outdated. Now you and I are arguing if they make men's dicks bigger or if "THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE"? lulz. Them possibly being bigger brings up a whole 'nother issue if body parts can actually become larger in a measurable and scientific way (they can't really, but short-term stretched capabilities can). And you ignored that treatment or healing fibrosis is important and relevant to increasing from their impotent size? Studies didn't cover that. I did, though.

In regards to what you said, the patients use VED therapy for 6 months and then did apparently nothing, or maybe cycling for sex, or maybe who knows? I was .25" short of my original size at 6 months. I'm sure you'll argue this sample is too small, but it's data and it's real about the importance of these 6 months completely bypassed by that study:

However, when we analyze the change in penile measurements from 6 to 12 months, there was a statistically significant increase in all 15 penile measurements. This appears be attributed to the protocol of maximum inflation for at least 1 hour daily. Tissue expansion involves making the tunica albuginea more compliant so it will stretch and allow larger distention by the inflated cylinder. Experience with repetitive vacuum device application shows the tunica will respond with short exposures to the vacuum therapy. Sellers et al. showed that 10 minutes a day of vacuum device application twice a day for 7 weeks promoted visible penile lengthening in the vacuum cylinder when marked weekly in first-time implant patients. It also, and more importantly, allowed the implanting physician to upsize his cylinder approximately 3 cm when compared with the average implant without vacuum preparation [21]. The application of vacuum to a penis with corporal fibrosis has also been described to preserve length preventing some of the shrinkage that accompanies removal of an IPP for infection. The published literature is, at best, anecdotal, but the belief is widespread among frequent implanters. The pressure difference between a hydraulic pump push inside the penis compared with low pneumatic suction on the external penis should be more than a thousand-fold stronger. (Henry et al. (2015)

So are we done with both agreeing at least losing size isn't a likely possibility?

[staphylococcusecoli]

Study Summary (Whatever the heck it means. Size increase or not, folks?)

Ummm. What part of “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up” makes your brain hurt?

IIEF-5 score improved from 9 to 25 at 1 year. Isn’t that a massive statistical increase? Please explain dude.