FrankTalk.org

I have been looking at the design of IPPs and I have some questions about how they are designed...

All of the cylinders I see have tubing that is angled forward, before then curving around and going back to the pump. Why is this? Couldn't the junction be placed slightly more toward the front of the cylinder, and then the tubing could drop straight down or even angle back a bit, reducing curved stress points in the tubing and making the tubing less pronounced and easy to hide?

Or how about having the tubes go into the very rear points of the cylinders, and then you can route them wherever you want in the body back to the scrotum/pump? Wouldn't that completely eliminate visible tubing? The only downside is you can't then use RTEs, or they'd have to be redesigned to fit around the tubing.

This might come from a misunderstanding on my part, or perhaps there's some anatomy that requires this design? They are all like this so there must be a good reason.

I suspect the tubing goes forward for when the cylinders are installed without RTEs. Maybe that only occurs when RTEs aren't to be used. With RTEs, I think the tubing is shorter and probably goes straight down to the pump'

tomas1 wrote:I suspect the tubing goes forward for when the cylinders are installed without RTEs. Maybe that only occurs when RTEs aren't to be used. With RTEs, I think the tubing is shorter and probably goes straight down to the pump'

It's a high pressure area so I bet it's set in there and the same for all implants of the same model, but I'm no expert.

ElbowRoom wrote:I have been looking at the design of IPPs and I have some questions about how they are designed...

All of the cylinders I see have tubing that is angled forward, before then curving around and going back to the pump. Why is this? Couldn't the junction be placed slightly more toward the front of the cylinder, and then the tubing could drop straight down or even angle back a bit, reducing curved stress points in the tubing and making the tubing less pronounced and easy to hide?

Or how about having the tubes go into the very rear points of the cylinders, and then you can route them wherever you want in the body back to the scrotum/pump? Wouldn't that completely eliminate visible tubing? The only downside is you can't then use RTEs, or they'd have to be redesigned to fit around the tubing.

This might come from a misunderstanding on my part, or perhaps there's some anatomy that requires this design? They are all like this so there must be a good reason.

The visible tubing depends on many factors. Some of them being how high the corporotomy is, how much RTE is used, how the surgeon decides to route the tubing, and how long are the tubes themselves. Most brands nowadays come preconnected with a standard size. But i know some doctors actually take the time to cut the tubes and trim them to the exact size needed (to make them as short as possible), so that the tubes will go directly to the pump and avoid redundancy in the scrotum and penis.

I know clavell does this (he told me this himself). But cutting the tubes is extra work and extra risk, as you need to reconnect them and it's another point of failure.

Personally i do not like my tube noticeable at the bace of my penis and i wish it was hidden better.

Discovernew wrote:

ElbowRoom wrote:I have been looking at the design of IPPs and I have some questions about how they are designed...

All of the cylinders I see have tubing that is angled forward, before then curving around and going back to the pump. Why is this? Couldn't the junction be placed slightly more toward the front of the cylinder, and then the tubing could drop straight down or even angle back a bit, reducing curved stress points in the tubing and making the tubing less pronounced and easy to hide?

Or how about having the tubes go into the very rear points of the cylinders, and then you can route them wherever you want in the body back to the scrotum/pump? Wouldn't that completely eliminate visible tubing? The only downside is you can't then use RTEs, or they'd have to be redesigned to fit around the tubing.

This might come from a misunderstanding on my part, or perhaps there's some anatomy that requires this design? They are all like this so there must be a good reason.

The visible tubing depends on many factors. Some of them being how high the corporotomy is, how much RTE is used, how the surgeon decides to route the tubing, and how long are the tubes themselves. Most brands nowadays come preconnected with a standard size. But i know some doctors actually take the time to cut the tubes and trim them to the exact size needed (to make them as short as possible), so that the tubes will go directly to the pump and avoid redundancy in the scrotum and penis.

I know clavell does this (he told me this himself). But cutting the tubes is extra work and extra risk, as you need to reconnect them and it's another point of failure.

Personally i do not like my tube noticeable at the bace of my penis and i wish it was hidden better.

Thanks for the information, that makes some sense.

How do you like the inflatable Rigicon implant? There aren't many out there and I'm curious because they will probably be available in the US pretty soon.

ElbowRoom wrote:

Discovernew wrote:

ElbowRoom wrote:I have been looking at the design of IPPs and I have some questions about how they are designed...

All of the cylinders I see have tubing that is angled forward, before then curving around and going back to the pump. Why is this? Couldn't the junction be placed slightly more toward the front of the cylinder, and then the tubing could drop straight down or even angle back a bit, reducing curved stress points in the tubing and making the tubing less pronounced and easy to hide?

Or how about having the tubes go into the very rear points of the cylinders, and then you can route them wherever you want in the body back to the scrotum/pump? Wouldn't that completely eliminate visible tubing? The only downside is you can't then use RTEs, or they'd have to be redesigned to fit around the tubing.

This might come from a misunderstanding on my part, or perhaps there's some anatomy that requires this design? They are all like this so there must be a good reason.

The visible tubing depends on many factors. Some of them being how high the corporotomy is, how much RTE is used, how the surgeon decides to route the tubing, and how long are the tubes themselves. Most brands nowadays come preconnected with a standard size. But i know some doctors actually take the time to cut the tubes and trim them to the exact size needed (to make them as short as possible), so that the tubes will go directly to the pump and avoid redundancy in the scrotum and penis.

I know clavell does this (he told me this himself). But cutting the tubes is extra work and extra risk, as you need to reconnect them and it's another point of failure.

Personally i do not like my tube noticeable at the bace of my penis and i wish it was hidden better.

Thanks for the information, that makes some sense.

How do you like the inflatable Rigicon implant? There aren't many out there and I'm curious because they will probably be available in the US pretty soon.

I haven't tried any other brand than rigicon. But they are not bad at all, bigger girth than all the brands and also expandable model. Since I have not tried any other brand I cannot do a direct comparison

Discovernew wrote:I haven't tried any other brand than rigicon. But they are not bad at all, bigger girth than all the brands and also expandable model. Since I have not tried any other brand I cannot do a direct comparison

I didn't mean comparing to others, just your user experience. What you like, don't like, find odd or weird, whatever.