Mechanical failure study...very interesting..

[Mark1974]

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10. ... 0003352.10

This is a study involving 1105 implants. It's only one study, but that is a big sample

2 things of significant interest to me were that
(a) median time to revision for AMS was only 2 years and average time for Coloplast was only 4 years
(b) Coloplast was twice as durable as the AMS

Again, it's just one study, but I wasn't expecting those results

[Franklin22]

This is interesting. Sounds like the 10 year expectation of an implant lasting is nothing more than a pipe dream. It makes sense, still haven’t seen anyone on this site post with an implant 10 years older or more.

[Craigohbig]

I’m youngish…I can’t imagine going through the 10-12 week recovery 10-12 more times

[Mark1974]

I agree

However one must clarify that out of 1105 surgeries 76 of those were mechanical failure revisions and that is averages that they determined

Of those 76 the numbers were as stated above

I was going in the direction of AMS CX for my first implant, but I think this changed my mind

[Mark1974]

I’m youngish…I can’t imagine going through the 10-12 week recovery 10-12 more times

I would try to use your implant conservatively

I wouldn't over-cycle after the initial recommended period, do VED or pump it up to masturbate more than once-twice a week or have sex more than maybe 3x a week

I'm going to try to research if there are ways to mitigate pump failures in Titans. It sounds like AMS have multiple failure points that make them even more vulnerable

[ThailandBound]

Interesting. Dr. Clavell mentions in one of his videos that the devices (not sure which) are lab tested to 55,000 cycles. He goes on to mention how most men in their lifetimes will not come close to this number.

This forum has been here for years with hundreds of guys getting implants, writing their stories, then disappearing. My speculation is that many would be eager to come here for revision support, but we just don’t see that many. Some, just not an amount that would reflect 2 - 4 year failures. Anecdotal, i know.

[newbie443]

This is interesting. Sounds like the 10 year expectation of an implant lasting is nothing more than a pipe dream. It makes sense, still haven’t seen anyone on this site post with an implant 10 years older or more.

Guess you need to read back farther. As I remember a guy with over 20 years on the old Ambicor. And other members with over 10 years on an implant. Mine is 6 years old. I did have a perforation repair but all the original parts were kept. That study is fairly small. Seems to have been done for the men who were operated on by low volume low skilled doctors.

This study has 15K men in it and is much larger than the one referred to above. So I have to believe it and posts by high volume doctors around the world of a 10 year life span. https://www.garber-online.com/pdf/Highe ... ctions.pdf If you scroll down to figure 3 on page 227 (don't worry the paper starts on page 223) you will see the life span of implant as it relates to case volume of doctor. In this even the low volume doctors still had over 90% survival at 10 years.

That report listed by the original poster should be questioned as it goes against all other published data on life span of a Penile Implant.

[RoboCock69]

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000003352.10

This is a study involving 1105 implants. It's only one study, but that is a big sample

2 things of significant interest to me were that
(a) median time to revision for AMS was only 2 years and average time for Coloplast was only 4 years
(b) Coloplast was twice as durable as the AMS

Again, it's just one study, but I wasn't expecting those results

You're misinterpreting the study. Out of those 1,105 implants, fewer than 100 even had mechanical failures. Those are the ones for which time to failure was documented.

[Mark1974]

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000003352.10

This is a study involving 1105 implants. It's only one study, but that is a big sample

2 things of significant interest to me were that
(a) median time to revision for AMS was only 2 years and average time for Coloplast was only 4 years
(b) Coloplast was twice as durable as the AMS

Again, it's just one study, but I wasn't expecting those results

You're misinterpreting the study. Out of those 1,105 implants, fewer than 100 even had mechanical failures. Those are the ones for which time to failure was documented.

No. They did 1105 procedures and of those 1105 procedures 76 of them were revisions

[Mark1974]

https://www.auajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1097/JU.0000000000003352.10

This is a study involving 1105 implants. It's only one study, but that is a big sample

2 things of significant interest to me were that
(a) median time to revision for AMS was only 2 years and average time for Coloplast was only 4 years
(b) Coloplast was twice as durable as the AMS

Again, it's just one study, but I wasn't expecting those results

You're misinterpreting the study. Out of those 1,105 implants, fewer than 100 even had mechanical failures. Those are the ones for which time to failure was documented.

No. They did 1105 procedures and of those 1105 procedures 276 of them were revisions and of those 76 were revisions for mechanical failures