FrankTalk.org

Hi there can anyone tell me the difference between the Coloplast and the AMS. Has anyone got a preference and why do some doctors use one over the other .Many thanks .

OK, this might seem funny. When I saw Dr. Kramer before surgery, he gets right in and grabs you, pretty darn fast about it. He said "older" guys sometimes have trouble with the Coloplast bulb being too difficult to squeeze, and AMS was easier, and that was his choice for me. It could also be his way of saying I wasn't a Titan kind of guy. It's all right, my ego wasn't bruised-too much. Life has been good since then, haha.

From what I've gathered on FT:

AMS is the oldest IPP manufacturer and thus has considerably larger market share.
Pros - more comfortable in flaccid state due to 25% expansion rate
impregnated with anti biotic to discourage infection
Cons - Not as rigid as Coloplast
Not as 'girthy'

Coloplast has a smaller market share but failure rate is comparable to AMS.
Pros - More ridgid
More girth
Cons - More susceptible to 'dog ears' in flaccid state/no expansion less comfortable

I think the coloplast has the smaller pump too.

Failure rate is the most important metric to compare IMO. This is any device failure outside the control of the recipient or the surgeon. Especially a failure rate of 5 years or less. Some docs seem to have success with one or the other, which should be taken into consideration.

This is usually a pump or tubing issue.

Minnesota, your post is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. You were implanted so young, now you're about my age. I can't believe I have missed your posts for so long. Well done for having the balls (haha) to go through all that at 20, my god man, I would have been too cowardly at that age.

2. I almost added that, although the titan has a smaller pump, it does seem to have a higher failure rate. I held off stating that because I didn't want to mislead folk, given my ignorance/lack of experience beyond theory. Then I saw that you did have a failure with your Titan, but then you went for another with the revision. Why was that?

Beyond all that, tell me what your life has been like since age 20. I will now go through your posts to have a good look, so perhaps that question willl become redundant.

LeRoastBeef wrote:Minnesota, your post is interesting for a number of reasons.

1. You were implanted so young, now you're about my age. I can't believe I have missed your posts for so long. Well done for having the balls (haha) to go through all that at 20, my god man, I would have been too cowardly at that age.

2. I almost added that, although the titan has a smaller pump, it does seem to have a higher failure rate. I held off stating that because I didn't want to mislead folk, given my ignorance/lack of experience beyond theory. Then I saw that you did have a failure with your Titan, but then you went for another with the revision. Why was that?

Beyond all that, tell me what your life has been like since age 20. I will now go through your posts to have a good look, so perhaps that question willl become redundant.

Titan has likely the best failure rate statistics, LGX the worst, and CX somewhere in between.
This study shows quite significant differences.
Getting your first implant at 30, you would look at 12 revisions with Titan and 21 (!!) with the LGX, if we assume you keep going till 80.
Sounds bad as shit, but that's what this study shows.
It also shows that the LGX length increasing rumour is mostly bogus. By the way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28537700

Regarding those horrible MTBF (mean time between failure) statistics, the median is probably much longer as with most mechanical devices. The mean is reduced by some devices failing immediately after installation.
There is also research showing that a Titan has 87% chance of surviving 5 years (CX 91%). This means that once you have made it through the first critical phase (whatever that is, a year perhaps), you can be pretty confident you will have 5-10 years of cruising before it's time to get under the knife again.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9515301752

Also, regarding hardness, for studies made with implant in dicks, read this. The LGX loses on all tests to CX and Titan.
Biomechanical Comparison of Inflatable Penile Implants: A Cadaveric Pilot Study - PubMed (nih.gov)

And if you want to read my longer post on this theme:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6010&p=142457#p142457

That all makes sense, Merrix.
Especially your point about the median perhaps being a better metric than the mean. It does seem that folk either have a failure right off the bat or go a long time before failure. To me it does anyway, from what I've read here.

Thanks for summarising all that data. You're always concise and clear, no bullshit straight to the point. This is why I should talk less and listen more.

merrix wrote:Titan has likely the best failure rate statistics, LGX the worst, and CX somewhere in between.
This study shows quite significant differences.
Getting your first implant at 30, you would look at 12 revisions with Titan and 21 (!!) with the LGX, if we assume you keep going till 80.
Sounds bad as shit, but that's what this study shows.
It also shows that the LGX length increasing rumour is mostly bogus. By the way.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28537700

Regarding those horrible MTBF (mean time between failure) statistics, the median is probably much longer as with most mechanical devices. The mean is reduced by some devices failing immediately after installation.
There is also research showing that a Titan has 87% chance of surviving 5 years (CX 91%). This means that once you have made it through the first critical phase (whatever that is, a year perhaps), you can be pretty confident you will have 5-10 years of cruising before it's time to get under the knife again.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9515301752

Also, regarding hardness, for studies made with implant in dicks, read this. The LGX loses on all tests to CX and Titan.
Biomechanical Comparison of Inflatable Penile Implants: A Cadaveric Pilot Study - PubMed (nih.gov)

And if you want to read my longer post on this theme:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6010&p=142457#p142457

Merrix, I did not see not see anything in the 2 links you posted about the poor longevity of the LGX. The first link was about length and I found no information on longevity. The second link had no mention of the LGX and while giving a slight advantage in longevity to the CX over the Titan there were only 138 cases studied. That seems pretty small number to me to draw a conclusion.

merrix wrote: The LGX loses on all tests to CX and Titan.
Biomechanical Comparison of Inflatable Penile Implants: A Cadaveric Pilot Study - PubMed (nih.gov)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6010&p=142457#p142457

Of course the LGX is less stiff than the Coloplast and even the CX. Those devices START OUT stiffer, have what amounts to a "head start". The CX because of the weave of the material and the Titan because the Bioflex material is just stiff to begin with, even without any fluid inside it.

Those are natural, inherent advantages of the CX and Titan.

The natural advantage of the LGX (which is significant to SOME men) makes no never mind to the test subjects in this study. They were all were dead (before implant) and thus have no complaint about an implant that is hard to conceal or troublesome to live with on a day-to-day basis.