Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

The final frontier. Deciding when, if and how.
edsince18
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:43 am

Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby edsince18 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:11 am

I have been told that the average infection rate is about 2% and the infection rate of high volume doc is 0.4% ~ 1%.


But one doctor says the many medical papers are biased and the actual infection rate is 5%.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/grandround ... -eros/amp/

If it is true, infection is a much more frequent and scary side effect than I knew.
very scary...
ed since high school graduation, 25 years old now

Jack317
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby Jack317 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:40 am

Yea scares me too I had an infection in my incision after my prostate surgery and ended up back in the hospital I’m praying doesn’t happen.
Jack
60 yrs old
Pasadena, CA
Radical non nerve sparing (open cut) prostatectomy Dec 2013
Implant date 12.26.19

Txagq8
Posts: 885
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby Txagq8 » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:11 am

I guess we will never know for sure.....you know there’s three kinds of lies:

1.lies
2. Damned lies
3. Statistics

But in sit down discussions, I had one doctor who implants 2-4 per month tell me his infection rate was just under 2% (that would be about one annually)

The other implants probably 15-20 per month and claims a 1% rate.

Interestingly, Both physicians implant both devices, but the first steered me towards a Titan while the second flat out told me he preferred AMS LGX, he implants them by a ratio of better than 10-1, and that is what he would want to install in me.

His reasoning was he liked the antibiotic coating on the AMS cylinders, he preferred their shape especially at the glans end, and he really liked that the AMS expanded in both length and girth.

Looks like exactly 2 weeks from right now I’ll be popping pain pills and wonder what I’ve done to myself with AMS cylinders where my corpora used to-be.
Age 68. Physically fit educated red neck in Texas. Very married. 23 cm (18+5) of LGX installed by Dr. Bryan Kansas 12/31/2019. I fought the ED and my wife & I won. I’m either full of shit or sound advice. You decide which.

Lost Sheep
Posts: 6162
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:16 pm

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby Lost Sheep » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:46 pm

edsince18 wrote:I have been told that the average infection rate is about 2% and the infection rate of high volume doc is 0.4% ~ 1%.


But one doctor says the many medical papers are biased and the actual infection rate is 5%.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/grandround ... -eros/amp/

If it is true, infection is a much more frequent and scary side effect than I knew.
very scary...

Interesting.

I note that this Doctor was speaking live to an industry group, primarily other physicians. This was not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Mass Media Communication (which this speech was, as delivered in person to the group and is, as published on the internet) has commonly recognized major goals (many textbooks have different lists, but the goals, in my mind, fall under these broad categories):

Inform
Persuade
Entertain
Gain some benefit

Clearly, entertainment was not this Doctor's goal, but between "Inform" and "Persuade", I must yet choose the speaker's motivation. "Why did he do this?"


I do not have time to read the text right now, so will reserve the right to amend this post later. I do note that Dr. Köhler seems well-regarded among his peers and has over 150 peer-reviewed articles published. That's a good sign for his veracity and make me tend to believe him.
Lost Sheep
AMS LGX 18+3 Nov 6, 2017
Prostate Cancer 2023
READ OLD THREADS-ask better questions -better understand answers
Be part of your medical team
Document pre-op size-photos and written records
Pre-op VED therapy helps. Post-op is another matter

TANGERINE
Posts: 849
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:10 pm

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby TANGERINE » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:28 am

Dr Tobias Kohler discusses the issue of under-reporting of infections with the following quote:
Dr Kohler states: .....Well, the data that we have right now is really suboptimal because one, there’s a publication bias for positive results. Nobody is going to publish their horrible results, number one. Number two, high-volume surgeons are more likely to publish. Number three, and this is a big one, attrition bias. If you look at the literature, you start with 100 implants, of the 60 that came back and saw me, they were doing great. What happened to the other 40? Well, maybe they went to another surgeon, they have infection, et cetera. So, this is a huge problem in our current literature.....


So with the above "bad news" on infections, the "good news is that 94% of men were satisfied with the penile implant.
"Strive to find the best surgeon--experience really matters"
(63 yo, Titan 22cm implant Feb 2017 by Dr Eid) I'm super pleased with my length/girth/implant performance. See my story at "The road to becoming a bionic male: Answers ..."

young_and_impotent
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:00 pm

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby young_and_impotent » Mon Dec 23, 2019 7:21 am

I'm dead scared if infection. Not only it will take a toll on my body. I will lose all the money invested. I can't afford to do this many times.
28 year old with severe lifelong ED.
Implanted in New Delhi on 26/12/19 with AMS CX (15x12) + 4cm RTE
Post op length 4.5 inches from ~ (5.5 to 6) inches. Disappointed!
Wish to have a revision to LGX some day.

Biker60
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Philadelphia Pa

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby Biker60 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 9:52 am

With all the talk about high volume vs low volume implanters and infection, other factors have to be considered. Smokers, HA1c (Pre and Diabetic), primarily surgery or revision surgery and post op care. I included a link to a recent study that looks at all the points discussed on this board and you tube videos. Its an easy read and very straight forward. Many of the techniques mentioned in present day Implanters are actually universal standards of practice.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6704299/

Crtrader
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:32 pm

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby Crtrader » Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:05 pm

That’s why I would be nervous to stay in a hotel right after surgery.

young_and_impotent
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 1:00 pm

Re: Are medical papers currently reporting lower infection rate than actual rate?

Postby young_and_impotent » Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:25 pm

What? I'm gone home one day after surgery!
28 year old with severe lifelong ED.
Implanted in New Delhi on 26/12/19 with AMS CX (15x12) + 4cm RTE
Post op length 4.5 inches from ~ (5.5 to 6) inches. Disappointed!
Wish to have a revision to LGX some day.


Return to “Implants”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], passionatedoer and 285 guests