FrankTalk.org

Why are there two rear tip extenders (RTEs)? I note that some implants for FTM transgenders have the prosthesis actually attached to the pelvic bone and is a single piece. Might guess because certain tissue structures are different from men and (former) women. But if there are no anatomical structures that prevent a man from having a single RTE on which to mount the two inflatable tubes could a single RTE do for a man's prosthesis?

This, I think, would allow for a pump bulb (most likely of a flattened elliptical shape) to be mounted just under the skin of the perineum and thus have no intratesticular problems (bicycle seat interference, tangling the tubes, ect). Also, a much lower failure rate might be achieved.

Thoughts?

Lost Sheep

Have you actually watched an implant surgery? There is no possible way you could implant two cylinders joined by one rear tip extender. There are two separate cavities in a penis, the corpus cavernosa, and they remain separated from the tip of the penis all the way to the ends in the abdominal cavity. Short of cutting off the rear end of each corpus, and carving away the flesh separating the two corpus, there is no way to have both cylinders share a common RTE.

Creating a penis using structures never intended for that purpose is a far cry from restoring hydrolic function using the existing anatomy.

Watsup wrote:Have you actually watched an implant surgery? There is no possible way you could implant two cylinders joined by one rear tip extender. There are two separate cavities in a penis, the corpus cavernosa, and they remain separated from the tip of the penis all the way to the ends in the abdominal cavity. Short of cutting off the rear end of each corpus, and carving away the flesh separating the two corpus, there is no way to have both cylinders share a common RTE.

Creating a penis using structures never intended for that purpose is a far cry from restoring hydrolic function using the existing anatomy.

I have seen several videos of operations, but the structures into which the implants are placed were not readily visible.

I take your point. While the two inflatable tubes COULD be joined at their bases, that would require modifying the organic tissues. Not a good idea to be more invasive than necessary. I was brainstorming a way to make the implant more durable and easier to implant. But in so doing, I was aware that there might be undesirable collateral effects. Hence my question. From your answer, I am guessing that the implant surgery with the RTEs joined (or even simply the bases of the inflatable tubes joined) would be much trickier than the separate RTEs.

Thanks for answering so swiftly.

I will have to look at those videos more carefully.

Lost Sheep

Lost Sheep wrote:

Watsup wrote:Have you actually watched an implant surgery? There is no possible way you could implant two cylinders joined by one rear tip extender. There are two separate cavities in a penis, the corpus cavernosa, and they remain separated from the tip of the penis all the way to the ends in the abdominal cavity. Short of cutting off the rear end of each corpus, and carving away the flesh separating the two corpus, there is no way to have both cylinders share a common RTE.

Creating a penis using structures never intended for that purpose is a far cry from restoring hydrolic function using the existing anatomy.

I have seen several videos of operations, but the structures into which the implants are placed were not readily visible.

I take your point. While the two inflatable tubes COULD be joined at their bases, that would require modifying the organic tissues. Not a good idea to be more invasive than necessary. I was brainstorming a way to make the implant more durable and easier to implant. But in so doing, I was aware that there might be undesirable collateral effects. Hence my question. From your answer, I am guessing that the implant surgery with the RTEs joined (or even simply the bases of the inflatable tubes joined) would be much trickier than the separate RTEs.

Thanks for answering so swiftly.

I will have to look at those videos more carefully.

Lost Sheep

If you watch the parts of the videos where the surgeon is dilating and measuring the corpora it is easy to see where they are are in the penis.. you can see the outlines of the tools inside each corpora. The dilation of the corpora and insertion of the cylinders inside the body is done blind. The surgeon cannot see them because they are inside the abdominal cavity and it would take much very invasive dissection to make them visible for no real purpose. It is also the reason that you cannot clearly see what is happening. While your idea may sound intriguing, it would involve a hugely invasive procedure, with many more oppotunities for things to go south than currently exist with the two current forms of the operation.

you have to (I think) take a look at some very clear surgical videos (kramer is the obvious choice since he's got like 200 high def vids) of how it's done. there's 2 separate channels, that diverge as you go in deeper, and it's blind when you go way up and way down. No way to try to fuse two separate channels into one, doesn't make anatomic sense to me-

treifsnyder wrote:you have to (I think) take a look at some very clear surgical videos (kramer is the obvious choice since he's got like 200 high def vids) of how it's done. there's 2 separate channels, that diverge as you go in deeper, and it's blind when you go way up and way down. No way to try to fuse two separate channels into one, doesn't make anatomic sense to me-

I understand, now that you tell me the two channels diverge.

I was thinking when I made my drawing on the thread ""Pumpless Inflatable" that there could be enough room in the body at the upper end of the RTEs and below where the inflatable tubes enter the cavernosa for the two RTE's to be conjoined. In that way there might be enough room for a pump near the base of the penis. The pump, of course, could not be inflated by manual action directly, but by moving the penis, saline fluid would be pumped to the inflatable tubes. In that way the erection would emulate a natural erection, seeming spontaneous (once the valve was put in the "inflate" position.

It's an idea.

Lost Sheep

p.s. The drawing in the thread ""Pumpless Inflatable" shows a circular cross-section. This shape would not be possible, but changing it to an ellipse was more than I had time for.