Implants need to have various thicknesses like they do for length

[Waynetho]

My calculations work. The following measurements:

After freshly deflated: 4.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.273 sq in (square inches)
While inflated: 5.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.989 sq in (square inches)

The difference in cross-section area is: 1.989-1.273 = 0.716 sq in difference
Two cylinders are involved so the difference is divided by 2: 0.716 / 2 = 0.358 sq in

The circumference of 0.358 sq in is 2.121" The diameter of a circle with circumference of 2.121" is 17.145 mm

The value of 17.145 mm falls within the maximum 18 mm inflation diameter of the CX cylinders.

These number are based on my measurements of my own penis both freshly deflated (tissues still compressed) and max inflation of the cylinders.

[Lost Sheep]

My calculations work. The following measurements:

After freshly deflated: 4.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.273 sq in (square inches)
While inflated: 5.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.989 sq in (square inches)

When freshly deflated and inflated to 5" girth, is your penis circular or oval? The Pi*R squared formula applies to circles and as a shape is more oval, a certain amount of error creeps in. The degree ovalness (eccentricity) of the inflated penis is likely different from the eccentricity of the uninflated penis.

But I to take your point. Different tunica dimensions in different men would benefit by the manufacturers' offering different diameter implants as well as different lengths.

[Waynetho]

My calculations work. The following measurements:

After freshly deflated: 4.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.273 sq in (square inches)
While inflated: 5.0" circumference (girth), cross-section area is 1.989 sq in (square inches)

When freshly deflated and inflated to 5" girth, is your penis circular or oval? The Pi*R squared formula applies to circles and as a shape is more oval, a certain amount of error creeps in. The degree ovalness (eccentricity) of the inflated penis is likely different from the eccentricity of the uninflated penis.

But I to take your point. Different tunica dimensions in different men would benefit by the manufacturers' offering different diameter implants as well as different lengths.

Girth measurement by way of a tape measure translates equally whether measuring a circular or an oval rod. Only if the rod has concave depressions would the girth measurement be inaccurate for cross-section area calculations.

When I'm freshly deflated I can mould the shape to a circular dimension but whether it is flat, oval or circular, the circumference or perimeter is the same. A square of 2" x 2" has a perimeter of 8" which is what a circumference is for a circle. Push the corners inward to displace area outward on the sides and you would have a circle whose circumference is... You guessed it, 8".

UPDATE:
Also, I avoided any calculation that started with a diameter or radius. That's where you've misunderstood me. I started my calculations exclusively from the circumference and avoided radii and diameters altogether. There are totally different much more complex formulas to calculate area from an oval - It has to do with the length and width dimensions and isn't at all what I used.

[Waynetho]

Another variable is that SOME men retain (and, rarely, regain) some cavernosum tissue erectile ability after implant. Possibly due to venous leakage mitigation through compression of the implant. But that is another speculation.

Doctors typically don't remove any tissue when inserting the cylinders. They dilate the existing tisues which can be quite destructive if done vigorously but doesn't actually remove the tissue but rather compresses and damages it to a degree. Review a few surgery videos again and you'll see what I mean. They run the dilators down the length of the corpus cavernosum in both directions but they never pull tissues out. It's merely opened up to 12mm to allow the cylinders to go in to the full length of the erectile body.

[Lost Sheep]

Another variable is that SOME men retain (and, rarely, regain) some cavernosum tissue erectile ability after implant. Possibly due to venous leakage mitigation through compression of the implant. But that is another speculation.

Doctors typically don't remove any tissue when inserting the cylinders. They dilate the existing tisues which can be quite destructive if done vigorously but doesn't actually remove the tissue but rather compresses and damages it to a degree. Review a few surgery videos again and you'll see what I mean. They run the dilators down the length of the corpus cavernosum in both directions but they never pull tissues out. It's merely opened up to 12mm to allow the cylinders to go in to the full length of the erectile body.

When I went to Seattle to interview Dr. Ostrowski (who trained under Dr. Walsh) at the Washington V.A., Dr. O was on leave. I spoke to Dr. Brisbane (serving urological surgery residency). He told me uniquivocally that they remove the corpus cavernosum tissue during the implant surgery.

Perhaps he mis-spoke. Perhaps I heard wrong. I know that there have been some studies (at least one of which has been referenced here on FrankTalk) that contrasts typical implant surgery with a "Tissue-Sparing" technique focused on the cavernosum tissue.

That is how I arrived at my conclusion that the majority of men are unlikely to retain erectile function.

My chosen surgeon told me that he does not remove or deliberately destroy cavernosum tissue and that is partly why I chose him. I have seen some videos of Dr Kramer, Dr. Eid and a few others and yes, the dilators and measuring tools are inserted quite energetically and the arterial blood supply to the cavernosum (I suppose) must be at risk as well. While many surgeons are adhering to the tissue-sparing technique, I don't know how many implants are done without a great deal of care to minimize damage or to avoid removal. In fact, I have never seen or heard of any surgeon deliberately removing cavernosum tissue (as you point out) EXCEPT Dr. Brisbane. And few indications that removal ever was a standard procedure except those medical papers addressing the deliberate preservation of it.

As always, I admit to not being a medical professional, so all my conclusions are subject to review, objection and correction.

[thereishope]

What this post shows is how certain members here do not do their due diligence when it comes to researching implants. Sometimes.... the devices they have implanted in their own body. Disheartning.

[FreddyFree]

My wife’s “measuring tool” says I lost girth!

[NextStepImplant]

What this post shows is how certain members here do not do their due diligence when it comes to researching implants. Sometimes.... the devices they have implanted in their own body. Disheartning.

What are you talking about? Everyone researched before. Who wouldn’t research a surgery like this? I placed all my bets on the right dr and the right implant. The surgery will allways be a risk and the results arnt the same for everyone. Don’t be a ass. It’s fine if you don’t agree but be respectful of another implantee.

Also I don’t have a wife.

[Waynetho]

SORRY IN ADVANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING MATH LESSON (Correcting one of my math suppositions)

The area of a square of a given perimeter does not equate to the area of a circle with the same value of circumference as I previously indicated. The circle's area will be a bit more for the same circumferential value than that of the square's perimeter. I made an incorrect assumption in that regard.

If the distance around an object does not change as it morphs from a square to a circle, the area within that shape will increase. While I don't fully understand this geometric concept, all of the formulas and circle calculators that I have found online in the past 24 hours seem to substantiate this as fact.

My original analogy was of a 2x2 square with area of 4 and perimeter of 8.

Translate the perimeter of 8 to a circle's circumference of 8 and that no longer gives an area of 4 but rather 5.0929581789407, instead.

Keeping the same area of 4 that was found in a square with a perimeter of 8, the circle with an area of 4 would have a circumference of 7.0898154036221, less than the perimeter of the square of the same area.

[WheezeTheJuice]

Wasn't there a recent podcast with Dr. Kramer where he talks about how he doesn't control the ultimate outcome of the circumference of the implant?

It's on this thread > viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14391

I don't know, I think it should be beneficial for the Dr. To know you're current size and I get the impression he didn't really seem to think it matters.