Interesting presentations

[ThePlumber1964]

Ali,

What you are pointing out here is one of many examples revealing that during the phase of the design of the experiment, there were areas that were not fully thought out, and are not representative of the reality as to how the devices really will behave.

Example: Just a simple recreation of a penis with characteristics that better mimic a real one, and performing the experiment with the cylinders inserted, would produce more realistic and reliable results, hence rendering fully trustable and unbiased conclusions.

[charlesr]

The comparison is representative within the parameters given. The outcome would vary with a model of the penis used. However, the tests are perfectly viable comparing the parameters of rigidity and compression. Testing needs to be done in a manner in which the testing is achievable. To attempt to get a perfectly representative response will never be done to 100%

[alibaba]

As far as flexation, the models are likely accurate. As far as girth and length expansion, the models are likely highly distant from real life use because of the tension needed to expand the human tissue which will vary from person to person, more so when you factor in degrees of scaring and encapsulation from prior implants. I would not give a cent for the expansion information except at the highest pressures and then would expect it to only be a percent of what is represented in the chart here. The only tension the example is dealing with in the test is the tension of the elastic polymers the implant sample is made of. Trying to expand the body takes it to a whole new level. One thing I know well have done trials, and studied trials is information can be skewed. It does not tell the ambient temperature the test was made. Being elastic polymers are the subject, if they did the test at an unrealistic temperature of say 130°or higher since medical silicone is rated for use to 450°, the test expansion is likely much higher than in real life. Tuesday night I participated in a meeting where everyone looked at different variables that could skew the results on a test study were were discussing. The ways the test could be skewed to get a desired result are near endless. I forget how many we came up with but in the end we decided the entire study was useless without redesign and much more data that narrowed the possibility for flaw or manipulation.
I just skimmed this study again and there is no mention how they pressurized. If they used a regulated motorized pump, then it would help to maintain an accurate comparison between the cylinders but that was done anyway when they say they clamped off the tubing to isolate the cylinder. In real life, we would want to see if the stability is maintained with the pump WE are supplied with and we would want to know if the pressures used were obtainable with the pump we use.

[ThePlumber1964]

Well explained, Ali. Having been involved in many clinical trials as QA is what gives me the same perspective of looking for all potential areas that can be impacting the results, and boy, there are a lot here. Again, not a good job done in the design of the experiment here.

I will repeat it again; I do not know the audience targeted, but this cannot be used for any kind of FDA submission.

ThePlumber

[Lost Sheep]

The most glaring deficiency I noted is that the testing was done on the devices alone. At least one of the models depends on the tunica albuginea for part of its function. Testing free-standing ignores that contribution.

[alibaba]

The most glaring deficiency I noted is that the testing was done on the devices alone. At least one of the models depends on the tunica albuginea for part of its function. Testing free-standing ignores that contribution.

agreed.

[merrix]

Plenty of intelligent people here with all sorts of relevant background. Would tick both those boxes on myself as well. And I would for the people who did the experiment we're talking about as well. I'm sure they are no morons, and I am sure they knew they would get all sorts of critical comments on the conference they presented the study at if it was rubbish.

Of course this was a lab experiment which not necessarily means the same results would appear in real life (i.e. in a dick). Or actually, most likely they wouldn't.
But that's nothing strange. That's obvious.
What would have been the option?
Implanting 10 guys with Titans and 10 with AMS and then measure expansion? There would be plenty of flaws with that setup as well. More actually. How do you know the 10 Titan dicks had the same girth, scar tissue etc as the 10 guys with the AMS implants? How would you know you had pumped exactly the same amount of fluid into all 20 implants?
There is no perfect experiment. By this design, at least what they did was controlling for plenty of other random variables. This compares one brand to the other without any other interfering variables. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It is what it is, and it says what it says. To say the study is useless is, in my opinion, wrong. I think it's very interesting. But of course it must be viewed in the light of its design and purpose.

[alibaba]

What did they do for a control group? Never inflate a bunch of plastic cylinders?