My opinion about Implant Longevity: - Worry is the Thief of Joy

[LiverpoolLad]

It’s really tough because at the core of it, he’s also suffering with ED like the rest of us

I’m not sure that’s true. He lies about everything else, why would he be telling the truth about that? He presents as a classic concern troll… someone who pretends to be part of a group of sufferers and supposedly concerned for their wellbeing, but is really there to harass and cause them discomfort. It’s unfortunately a common phenomena on boards like this one for people trying to support each other.

It’s a game they play. They lose the game and get bored if people ignore them.

Which is much worse than ED, haha. This guy’s only joy in life comes from harassing people so he can feel superior. How sad is that? I’d rather have ED than be that fucked up.

So, don’t engage. Don’t quote. Just put him on the ignore list (it’s called the “foes” list here).

yes please do...whoever sees me a troll add me to the foes list.

Added

[LiverpoolLad]

I’m not sure that’s true. He lies about everything else, why would he be telling the truth about that? He presents as a classic concern troll… someone who pretends to be part of a group of sufferers and supposedly concerned for their wellbeing, but is really there to harass and cause them discomfort. It’s unfortunately a common phenomena on boards like this one for people trying to support each other.

It’s a game they play. They lose the game and get bored if people ignore them.

Which is much worse than ED, haha. This guy’s only joy in life comes from harassing people so he can feel superior. How sad is that? I’d rather have ED than be that fucked up.

So, don’t engage. Don’t quote. Just put him on the ignore list (it’s called the “foes” list here).

yes please do...whoever sees me a troll add me to the foes list.

Added

Oh look I can’t see what he wrote, this is brilliant you should all try it

[Wooody]

I know a lot of guys in here worry about when their implant is going to fail, and I get it—I really do. The thought crosses everyone’s mind. But here’s the truth: you might get 6 months, you might get 20 years, and most of us will fall somewhere in between. Obsessing over the exact number doesn’t change the outcome. All it does is add unnecessary stress to your life.

The way I see it, this device is a godsend for the vast majority of us. It gives us back something we thought was gone forever. Is it perfect? No. Nothing ever is. But it works, and it lets us live fuller lives. That’s a gift.

So my advice is this: don’t waste a single minute worrying about when it will break. Be grateful for every day you have it. Enjoy it while you do. When the time comes for a revision, handle it then—and keep moving forward. Live your best life, live it to the fullest, and don’t let fear rob you of joy today.

PowerliftingDad - great post and I agree with you fully. I am truly grateful to be ED-free and living my best life now. And yes, I'm going to preach it too!

Unfortunately, it seems now after every single positive post that is made, here comes an antagonist to continually complain and drive negative points to fulfill an agenda that IPP's are unreliable. Basically, hijacking all positive threads with the same points.

It seems the most used data is the MAUDE adverse events report. Since no one has seemed to actually provide real data from the MAUDE report, I've done a little data collecting from it and am wondering what people make of it.

At this time, I have collected the data only related to Coloplast Titan adverse events, not the Boston Scientific events.

From the 8/25 MAUDE IPP adverse events report......

Data was provided from 12 countries: US, Korea, New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, Peru, France, Jordan, Canada, Belgium, Senegal, and Egypt. Unsurprisingly, the most came from the US (74).

The total number of Titan adverse events entered was 120. There were some duplicate entries and some missing relevant and important data points.

The events in this report are predominately from 7/25 (56), with some from 8/25 (16). The rest are scattered over other months earlier this year and last. So, they are not just 1 month of events.

71 of the events were device failures, and 42 were not related to device failures. Events such as infections, erosion, reservoir migration, sizing errors, surgeon mistakenly cutting tubes, etc.

I've also included a table showing the year of implantation for the device failures. Not all events detailed the age of the device (assumed year of implantation). From the 67 device failure events with device ages listed in the report, it appears that 21% of those failed 10+ years after implantation, 45% failed 5-10 years after, and 34% failed 0-5 years after. See tables below.

Despite these failures, 71 Titan device failures reported over a couple month period while thousands of implantations are happening every month worldwide, and have been for many years, does not seem a like a large number to indicate unreliable or poorly made devices. These are mechanical devices and some are going to fail early. We also do not know the total number of IPPs in service or the number of new implantations occurring monthly. It can also be safely assumed that that number is and has been growing, worldwide. But I'm no statistician or analyst.

It was sad to see some guys experienced surgeons that cut their IPP tubes or cylinders during hernia or other surgeries, sizing errors, or... a guy that had a doctor think he had a priapism, didn't know he had an IPP and stuck a needle in it and ruptured it?! This is why members here reinforce the importance of getting a high volume, reputable surgeon. It can't be said enough.

Thoughts?

[Jgoody]

Thanks for sharing that. That's been my thought process the whole time with this MAUDE thing. So if say 71 failures are reported in it, it doesn't tell you much without knowing total number of functioning implant. I bet you that 71 versus total number of implants is going to be a very small fraction. A quick Google search estimates 25,000 implants are performed every year, just in the US.

But not comparing those adverse events to total number of functioning implants doesn't really help much so I'm not sure how that is so alarming to some in terms of implants reliability. It's literally just saying, for instance- 37% of these REPORTED FAILURES was due to X- NOT 37% of total functioning implants failed at that time & for that reason.
Without having the total number of implants installed & functioning, the numbers & reasons of failure is not enough info to make an accurate judgment of reliability & failures. It's just saying there were 71 failures. If there were 2,083 installed per month (25k divided by 12) just in the USA, that's still going to be a small percentage. Unless I'm missing something.

Thanks for sharing that again though

[PowerliftingDad]

Great work putting this together and sharing the numbers! It really helps to see context instead of just the negative spin that sometimes pops up.
Like you said, these are mechanical devices and nothing man-made lasts forever...but when you look at how many thousands of implants are placed and how few issues actually make it into reports, it’s clear the vast majority of us are living better, fuller lives because of them.

For me, it’s about being grateful every single day and living in the moment... enjoying the gift of being ED-free now, instead of wasting energy worrying about what might happen down the road. Thanks for bringing both perspective and positivity to the forum!

[Thisworld]

Thoughts?

Woody whenever you have time, if you want, it wuold be great if you could do the same research for boston scientific in order to have a comparison. Thanks!

[wilsonmill]

Great read, mostly, I agree with you, I had the Titan and it failed after 5 yrs, the revision was nothing like the original and so far the AMS LGX is working great, if this one fails maybe try a Rigicon model once they approve it for the US market. Either way, I am glad the technology is out there.

[Kiwias]

As someone who is booked for an implant in about 2 months time I have been reading these arguments with interest. However I'm too lazy to go off and do my own research. So I asked Chat GPT to give me an unbiased analysis of Tooyoung's arguments.
I have posted it below. Sorry it's so long. I don't intend to post on this subject again. Just thought I would share this with the community.

______________________________________________

Here’s a structured, unbiased critical analysis of tooyoung’s arguments on FrankTalk regarding penile prosthesis failure. It’s written as my independent assessment (not yours), with detailed evidence and figures. You could post this as-is to the forum.


---

Critical Analysis of tooyoung’s Arguments on IPP Mechanical Failure

Introduction

In several posts on FrankTalk, the user tooyoung has raised concerns about the long-term reliability of inflatable penile prostheses (IPPs). His core arguments center on skepticism of published survival data, heavy reliance on FDA MAUDE reports, anecdotal failures, and criticism of what he perceives as overly optimistic “propaganda” from device manufacturers or surgeons. While this skepticism highlights valid concerns, his conclusions often overreach or misinterpret available evidence. Below is a critical appraisal of his claims.


---

Claim 1: “Long-term reliability is questionable.”

Support: This concern is valid for newer entrants (e.g., Rigicon Infla10), where only 1–3 year outcome series exist. Long-term (>5 years) revision-free survival is unproven.

Counterpoint: For established devices (AMS 700, Coloplast Titan), multiple independent studies document 10+ year outcomes. Large cohorts consistently show:

3–5 years: ~85–95% survival free from mechanical revision.

10 years: ~60–85% survival, depending on model and cohort.
(Sources: Montague 2011; Wilson 2007; Mulcahy 2013; various registry reviews).


Verdict: ⚠️ Partly correct — uncertainty is real for new devices, but dismisses strong evidence for AMS/Titan longevity.



---

Claim 2: “MAUDE data proves poor reliability.”

Support: The MAUDE database is useful for detecting signals (e.g., tubing junction issues, pump malfunctions). Wilson et al. (2025) highlight that ~1,324 reports of IPP adverse events were filed in the first 5 months of 2025.

Counterpoint: MAUDE data has severe limitations:

It is voluntary, incomplete, and subject to both under-reporting and duplicate reporting.

It provides no denominator (we don’t know how many devices were implanted in the same period).

Therefore, it cannot yield valid incidence or comparative rates.


Verdict: ❌ Misapplied — MAUDE cannot be used to prove population-level failure rates.



---

Claim 3: “Coloplast has a 30% yearly revision rate.”

Evidence check: No peer-reviewed data supports this figure. If true, it would imply near-universal device failure within 3–4 years, which is inconsistent with all published survival analyses.

Empirical data:

Griggs et al. (2025): Median time to mechanical failure was ~41 months for Coloplast and ~48 months for Boston Scientific.

Failure modes:

Boston: Cylinder rupture 41%, pump failure 33%.

Coloplast: Tubing fracture 78%.


These figures show patterns, but not catastrophic annual revision rates.


Verdict: ❌ Unsupported — the “30% per year” claim is almost certainly a misinterpretation.



---

Claim 4: “Peer-reviewed 8–12 year survival claims are a hoax.”

Support: Some older “heroic” long-term series may be influenced by selection bias (single surgeons, sponsored studies, high-volume centers).

Counterpoint: Independent registry data and multi-center cohorts also confirm long-term durability, even if outcomes vary across populations.

Verdict: ❌ Overstated — fair to critique methodology, but dismissing all long-term data as “hoax” ignores a substantial body of consistent evidence.



---

Claim 5: “Multiple failures in a few years prove unreliability.”

Support: Individual patients do sometimes experience repeat failures, often due to infection, anatomy, or surgical technique. These stories are real.

Counterpoint: Anecdotes do not represent population-level performance. In large cohorts, annual mechanical failure rates are typically ~1–3%.

Verdict: ⚠️ True for individuals, misleading when generalized.



---

Claim 6: “Weak links are pump/tubing junctions.”

Evidence: This is strongly supported across literature. Both Wilson (2025) and Griggs (2025) confirm that tubing fractures and pump junction leaks remain the most common failure points, regardless of manufacturer.

Verdict: ✅ Correct and consistent with current evidence.



---

Overall Assessment

Strengths of tooyoung’s stance:

Highlights valid gaps in long-term data for newer devices.

Correctly identifies tubing/pump junctions as the most common weak spot.

Keeps attention on the risk of revision surgeries.


Weaknesses of his stance:

Overrelies on MAUDE reports and anecdotes.

Misrepresents statistics (e.g., “30% per year” for Coloplast).

Dismisses peer-reviewed evidence too broadly.

Emotional tone (“hoax,” “propaganda”) weakens the argument’s credibility.




---

Conclusion

tooyoung’s posts raise important questions, especially for younger patients facing decades of implant use. His skepticism about newer devices is fair. However, his quantitative claims are not supported by data, and his dismissal of long-term studies overlooks a large body of evidence showing that AMS and Titan implants achieve high durability over 5–10 years. The best reading is: short-term reliability is strong across all modern brands; tubing and pump connections remain the weak link; long-term durability is proven for AMS/Titan but still unproven for Rigicon.

[AussieGuy81]

Haha, that's awesome mate. Pretty much confirms what we all thought, TooDumb loves those Maude reports even though they don't really tell you anything at all

[Thisworld]

Thoughts?

Woody whenever you have time, if you want, it wuold be great if you could do the same research for boston scientific in order to have a comparison. Thanks!

August 2025 AMS700 reports analysis.

P.S Reports included in the excel sheet are ONLY those that included both device manufacture date and event date so we can analyse their lifespan.

Also there's usually 1 year delay between manufacture date and time of implantation. I didn't factor this in....I assumed that device manufacture date is the same as implantation date so actual numbers should be even lower.

Ok i'm not so good at numbers, but so from these MAUDE reports (which we understand are not conclusive for the whole population of implants) we can conclude that 34% of Coloplast fail before 5 years, while 54% of ams fail before 5 years. Correct?
Because by looking at users experiences from this forum i wuold have assumed that BSC was more durable than Titan, but MAUDE seems to contradict that. TooYoung It's not clear to me if the file you attacched is only for mechanical malfunction or adverse events in general tho