Question about LGX

[hope794]

Giving me opposite informations :S maybe i should call BS..

[Lost Sheep]

Giving me opposite informations :S maybe i should call BS..

I am guessing that ":S" was meant to be "LS", so will respond as if it is.

I am quite willing to correct my thinking if my thinking is wrong. Can you/will you elaborate with specificity about the opposing information?

I am here to help, and if I give wrong information, I really want to make it right.

[hope794]

Giving me opposite informations :S maybe i should call BS..

I am guessing that ":S" was meant to be "LS", so will respond as if it is.

I am quite willing to correct my thinking if my thinking is wrong. Can you/will you elaborate with specificity about the opposing information?

I am here to help, and if I give wrong information, I really want to make it right.

:S was a "face" in internet language.. Like a "worried face". LOL.

I meant that the guy before you has said the contrary.. he said that his doctor told him that a LGX 21cm can expand up to 25cm.

[Waynetho]

Giving me opposite informations :S maybe i should call BS..

I am guessing that ":S" was meant to be "LS", so will respond as if it is.

I am quite willing to correct my thinking if my thinking is wrong. Can you/will you elaborate with specificity about the opposing information?

I am here to help, and if I give wrong information, I really want to make it right.

:S was a "face" in internet language.. Like a "worried face". LOL.

I meant that the guy before you has said the contrary.. he said that his doctor told him that a LGX 21cm can expand up to 25cm.

A 21cm LGX is 21cm deflated. It can expand up to 20% of the EXPANSION area if I'm not mistaken, so subtract about 6cm from the total length (look up the actual front/rear tip sizes to be sure), then multiply the remainder by 1.20, then add the tips back into the equation. That will give you the expansion size of 20% for the silicone inflation area.

This is how I understand the LGX is measured for the 20%. I don't have an LGX so I haven't extensively researched this so YMMV (Your mileage may vary).

Using my hypothetical 6cm tip-size in the equation,

21 - 6 = 15
15 * 1.20 = 18
18 + 6 = 24 (24 cm expanded size for 21 cm)

[hope794]

I am guessing that ":S" was meant to be "LS", so will respond as if it is.

I am quite willing to correct my thinking if my thinking is wrong. Can you/will you elaborate with specificity about the opposing information?

I am here to help, and if I give wrong information, I really want to make it right.

:S was a "face" in internet language.. Like a "worried face". LOL.

I meant that the guy before you has said the contrary.. he said that his doctor told him that a LGX 21cm can expand up to 25cm.

A 21cm LGX is 21cm deflated. It can expand up to 20% of the EXPANSION area if I'm not mistaken, so subtract about 6cm from the total length (look up the actual front/rear tip sizes to be sure), then multiply the remainder by 1.20, then add the tips back into the equation. That will give you the expansion size of 20% for the silicone inflation area.

This is how I understand the LGX is measured for the 20%. I don't have an LGX so I haven't extensively researched this so YMMV (Your mileage may vary).

Using my hypothetical 6cm tip-size in the equation,

21 - 6 = 15
15 * 1.20 = 18
18 + 6 = 24 (24 cm expanded size for 21 cm)

Got it! Thank you Wayne!!

[Lost Sheep]

Giving me opposite informations :S maybe i should call BS..

Waynetho and I carried on a debate in PMs about our differing opinions on the length-expansion character of the AMS LGX and came to an impasse.

My belief is that the implant is labelled for its full maximum length (a 21cm label indicates the implant is around 15-16cm long deflated and 21 cm long when inflated fully) thereby allowing a man to have a flaccid which is shorter than his erection.

As I understand it, Wayntho's belief is that the 21cm-labelled implant is 21cm when deflated and when inflated lengthens to the limit of the man's tunica, whatever it is, up to the maximum length of the implant's capacity - probably around 25cm (20% to 25% expansion of the inflatable tube portion of the implant). (Waynetho, I hope I summarized your words correctly.)

We concluded that without hard evidence (watch out for the pun!) we cannot conclude positively one way or the other.

That leaves all of the rest of you to ponder the answer and decide for yourselves (or to present evidence).

Waynetho and I enjoyed a lively and civil back and forth (not muddying up the thread). My hat is off to you, sir for your clear thinking on the subject and articulate expression of your position and arguments.

[Lost Sheep]

Here are some thoughts to consider on the lengthening characteristics of the AMS LGX and how it is used in patients.

This article would be informative. The LGX and CX give increased functional penile length of 1.2 and 1.1 cm when replacement is performed at a service life greater than 2 years. Suggesting there is little difference between LGX and CX or even Titan as tissue expanders (in length).
abstract
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28537700/
full article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678524/


Pages 14, 15 and 23 of the AMS Operating Room Manual for installing their IPPs contains some evidence that might be illuminating.

https://www.bostonscientific.com/conten ... M_en_s.pdf

Pages 14 and 15 describe measuring the length of the Tunica.
Page 15 specifies selection of the cylinder size and makes no reference to the shorter length of the uninflated LGX vs the CX, but only refers to cylinder length by the nominal sizes.

(ASIDE: I note that the 2cm subtraction is a reference to a technique espoused by Montagu, et al, that has largely fallen out of use. It seems to be a preventative for the "S-Curve Deformity" that plagued the LGX's predecessor (Ultrex), now off the market.)

Then, on page 23 the inflation/deflation test is described (without differentiation between the CX and the LGX), suggesting (to me) that the fully lengthened length of the LGX is being tested for proper fit into the glans. Since the implant is fully inflated when fit is evaluated, I assume it is fully lengthened (to the nominal size on the packaging) and it is the fully lengthened length that is intended to fit the patient's length.

To my mind, then, if the surgeon measures a 21 cm space in the Tunica he would choose either a 21cm CX or 21CM LGX and's test the fit of either device in exactly the same way, by fully inflating and verifying the seating of the distal tips in the glans and the proximal tips in the crus.

This also seems to be the way the devices are implanted in the videos I have seen.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to go back and see Dr Kramer's videos where he narrates his procedures and may have mentioned the sizing process for LGX and if it differs from the CX because of the lengthening feature. I don't recall him ever mentioning it in the ones I watched. But that was three years ago. I had no need to watch the videos once I got my implant.

Submitted for your consideration.

[Gt1956]

Thanks LS. I'll have to read those links later. I plan on seeing my doctor very early in 2021. I definitely plan on grilling him about the LGX sizing at that time. Been working on a list of questions. Personally. I have to lean towards Waynetho's ideas. But I do understand your point of view.
To me, the claim that some LGX owners have regained more length than might be expected fall towards Waynetho.
If you are referring to the method of calculating the LGX length during surgery in the AMS manual? Earlier this year there was a thread that I posted in. One of the posters said that he had asked his doctor about the apparent 2cm problem. I think he said that most surgeons don't use that method anymore. I take that as meaning the phrase "aggressive sizing". You read about that but nobody explains what it means. My theory, without any proof. Is that ignoring the 2cm is the defination of aggressive sizing.
I'm sticking with that for the time being. Until I find a better definition. I'm willing to let my beliefs evolve.

[Lost Sheep]

Thanks LS. I'll have to read those links later. I plan on seeing my doctor very early in 2021. I definitely plan on grilling him about the LGX sizing at that time. Been working on a list of questions. Personally. I have to lean towards Waynetho's ideas. But I do understand your point of view.
To me, the claim that some LGX owners have regained more length than might be expected fall towards Waynetho.
If you are referring to the method of calculating the LGX length during surgery in the AMS manual? Earlier this year there was a thread that I posted in. One of the posters said that he had asked his doctor about the apparent 2cm problem. I think he said that most surgeons don't use that method anymore. I take that as meaning the phrase "aggressive sizing". You read about that but nobody explains what it means. My theory, without any proof. Is that ignoring the 2cm is the defination of aggressive sizing.
I'm sticking with that for the time being. Until I find a better definition. I'm willing to let my beliefs evolve.

The logic behind the subtraction of the 2 cm to get the "adjusted" length is described in "Cylinder Sizing: Less is More" by Montague and Angermeier. It has been surpassed and is not current practice. The article was written in 2003.

The link I had before is now dead-ended. A couple of summaries are here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/3901088
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ss_is_more
More information may be found here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20implants

and this article (I just found today) was published in 2016 on a study on men implanted between 2009 and 20012. It focuses on avoiding penile shortening and does not mention penile lengthening attributable the lengthening ability of the LGX.
https://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp ... last=Negro

[hope794]

Thanks LS. I'll have to read those links later. I plan on seeing my doctor very early in 2021. I definitely plan on grilling him about the LGX sizing at that time. Been working on a list of questions. Personally. I have to lean towards Waynetho's ideas. But I do understand your point of view.
To me, the claim that some LGX owners have regained more length than might be expected fall towards Waynetho.
If you are referring to the method of calculating the LGX length during surgery in the AMS manual? Earlier this year there was a thread that I posted in. One of the posters said that he had asked his doctor about the apparent 2cm problem. I think he said that most surgeons don't use that method anymore. I take that as meaning the phrase "aggressive sizing". You read about that but nobody explains what it means. My theory, without any proof. Is that ignoring the 2cm is the defination of aggressive sizing.
I'm sticking with that for the time being. Until I find a better definition. I'm willing to let my beliefs evolve.

The logic behind the subtraction of the 2 cm to get the "adjusted" length is described in "Cylinder Sizing: Less is More" by Montague and Angermeier. It has been surpassed and is not current practice. The article was written in 2003.

The link I had before is now dead-ended. A couple of summaries are here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/3901088
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ss_is_more
More information may be found here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20implants

and this article (I just found today) was published in 2016 on a study on men implanted between 2009 and 20012. It focuses on avoiding penile shortening and does not mention penile lengthening attributable the lengthening ability of the LGX.
https://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp ... last=Negro

Thank you LS!!! Nice answers, as always.