Coloplast v AMS

[newbie443]

In regards to hardness, my LGX at age 63 fully pumped 100% is harder than I ever was with a natural erection. So anything harder seems to be a waste to me. And men have posted that on this board that some women do not like 100% inflation. Now for larger sizes I can see how the Titan or CX should be the choice. If I ever get back to or was able to get my healthy youth size I would most likely have been more to the Titan side of this. Or if I had curvature that would need to be straightened. But I had size loss. And the the LGX has the ability to expand in length more. That dose not mean it will. The others also do have ability to expand some. There are really good reasons for each of the models. And as up to now all the information I have seen is that longevity was really close on all the different models. But the reason for failure varies in favor for or against one or the other. I see not one best device for all men. I see this as a man having a device that is best for him.

If there is data out there that shows poor reliability for the LGX I really want to see this and look at the study.

[merrix]

Merrix, I did not see not see anything in the 2 links you posted about the poor longevity of the LGX. The first link was about length and I found no information on longevity. The second link had no mention of the LGX and while giving a slight advantage in longevity to the CX over the Titan there were only 138 cases studied. That seems pretty small number to me to draw a conclusion.

Maybe you didn't read open-mindedly enough..!

I'll quote from the abstract from the link:
Mean time between implants was earlier for LGX (29 months) than CX (39 months) and Titan (48 months) patients (p<0.001).
The purpose of the study was not reliability. They wanted to see differences between length of second implant vs first implant for different models of implant. Because they assume that the longer the implant is in the dick, the more it will potentially stretch tissue, they controlled for time between surgeries. And of course, nobody does a revision unless needed to. Of course, in some cases, revision could be for other reasons than implant failure. But this is probably a minority of cases, and also valid for all three types and hence just adding some random variation, but no systemic variation between types.
So as a bonus they got a reliability study as well...
And as a sidenote, the length gaining from the LGX was negligible compared to the other two.

The second one, you are right. Nothing about LGX. I never said it was either. That was Titan and CX.
The interesting bit was that 5 years reliability is very high considering Mean Time Between Failure. This indicates that once you have passed the first critical phase, you will have a good chance of a much longer life time of your implant than the mean life time.

Comparable with life time of human beings. In my home country I think the mean life time of a new-born male is about 80.
But for a 60 year old, the expected life time is probably 85-90. Meaning that the mean of the whole population is heavily reduced by those few who die as children and young adults. Once you get beyond that stage, you can expect to live longer than the mean for the whole population.

[merrix]

Of course the LGX is less stiff than the Coloplast and even the CX. Those devices START OUT stiffer, have what amounts to a "head start". The CX because of the weave of the material and the Titan because the Bioflex material is just stiff to begin with, even without any fluid inside it.

Those are natural, inherent advantages of the CX and Titan.

The natural advantage of the LGX (which is significant to SOME men) makes no never mind to the test subjects in this study. They were all were dead (before implant) and thus have no complaint about an implant that is hard to conceal or troublesome to live with on a day-to-day basis.

Yes of course they are. Exactly. That was my point and that was what the study proved. Those differences are for real, but the benefit to the individual of those advantages is subjective and valued different from person to person.

The natural advantage of the AMS is a subjective thing as well and to some even a disadvantage (some people actually do want an increase in flaccid volume).

[merrix]

In regards to hardness, my LGX at age 63 fully pumped 100% is harder than I ever was with a natural erection. So anything harder seems to be a waste to me. And men have posted that on this board that some women do not like 100% inflation. Now for larger sizes I can see how the Titan or CX should be the choice. If I ever get back to or was able to get my healthy youth size I would most likely have been more to the Titan side of this. Or if I had curvature that would need to be straightened. But I had size loss. And the the LGX has the ability to expand in length more. That dose not mean it will. The others also do have ability to expand some. There are really good reasons for each of the models. And as up to now all the information I have seen is that longevity was really close on all the different models. But the reason for failure varies in favor for or against one or the other. I see not one best device for all men. I see this as a man having a device that is best for him.

If there is data out there that shows poor reliability for the LGX I really want to see this and look at the study.

Yes, agree. Some people think that the model with the least hardness is still hard enough when inflating to the maximum.
But probably those are exactly the people who might benefit the most from the other two models.
Because the column strength, horizontal strength, 3-point flex all go down the drain when an LGX is NOT inflated to the max.
In other words, the rigidity of the CX and the Titan is even more superior to the LGX when someone prefers to fuck with a less than rock hard dick.

[newbie443]

Merrix, we agree on one thing in that the first link you posted purpose is NOT reliably. So it is NOT for the purpose of such references. So that is why I did not see as such. And why I disagree with your post telling other members that they will need nearly twice the revisions with a LGX as a Titan. Using the information in that report for other than was intended goes extremely beyond reading with an open mind. The purpose was tissue expansion over time and it seems to me this does have a bearing on the study. It is true that if you take the differences just between the Titan and the CX and the between the CX and the LGX that those differences are low. But it should be noted that both the CX and LGX gave more length expansion than the Titan. And if you compare the LGX(1.2) to the Titan(0.9), the LGX had 1/3 again as much gain as the Titan in just over 1/2 the time. So this is far from debunking the LGX tissue expanding.

I am not for or against any of the devices. I do believe that we are different and this is why there are different devices. Again if you have any information that shows that the the LGX has poor reliability I would like to see it. My information shows this is not so. This is a current (November 2020) study that is in line with what research has shown in that there is no significant difference in longevity in the current available devices. https://www.cureus.com/articles/36922-a ... ure-review

[robertm]

I never understood the length and girth expansion of the LGX. Expanding from what, to what? If you are sized with the maximum possible length at the time of surgery, how is there room for the implant to expand length-wise?

[Gt1956]

I'll thow out an idea. In the LGX part of the study. Was any attempt made to factor in the 2cm measurement reduction in the manual. I honestly feel that until that issue is either resolved or controlled somehow. Any study looking at the length expanding feature is suspect.
Also, any study using cadavers will not reflect any tunica stretching by any implant models in my opinion. That growth seem to take longer than any cadaver would remain viable.
Towards the end of my first exam for an implant. My surgeon was adamant that there would be significant growth in length in the first year if his inflation protocol was followed. Upon lots of relection on that exam. I can only pressume that he does not subtract the 2cm. So 2cm plus any stretching that may occur would seem significant in my mind.
In my state in the midle of nowhere USA. The relatively small population of slightly over 3 million. I've yet to find a surgeon of any significant experience that uses Coloplast implants. Not that it means anything bad about them. It is just one of many data points to consider. I'll probably go with trusting my doctors skill & experience as to his recommendation for which model to use.

[LeRoastBeef]

I think often we are not sized exactly to our length. This is due to surgeon error, but also due to fear of erosion if they overdo it, which would be a severe problem. So the idea is to undershoot just that little bit, this is escpecially the case if the surgeon is less experienced. We all have to start somewhere.

The idea with the LGX is that it does over that little bit less resistance to stretching, and so will strech more over time than the Titan. It doesn't seem that the difference between the 2 models is that significant however, and that you often hear about titan guys gaining back lots of length over time too.

You have to consider that there will be more potential to stretch girth wise than length wise simply due to the shape of the implant. You're working with a long cylinder, there will be more resistance to stretching length wise than across the circumference. I think....

[Lost Sheep]

In regards to hardness, my LGX at age 63 fully pumped 100% is harder than I ever was with a natural erection. So anything harder seems to be a waste to me. And men have posted that on this board that some women do not like 100% inflation. Now for larger sizes I can see how the Titan or CX should be the choice. If I ever get back to or was able to get my healthy youth size I would most likely have been more to the Titan side of this. Or if I had curvature that would need to be straightened. But I had size loss. And the the LGX has the ability to expand in length more. That dose not mean it will. The others also do have ability to expand some. There are really good reasons for each of the models. And as up to now all the information I have seen is that longevity was really close on all the different models. But the reason for failure varies in favor for or against one or the other. I see not one best device for all men. I see this as a man having a device that is best for him.

If there is data out there that shows poor reliability for the LGX I really want to see this and look at the study.

Yes, agree. Some people think that the model with the least hardness is still hard enough when inflating to the maximum.
But probably those are exactly the people who might benefit the most from the other two models.
Because the column strength, horizontal strength, 3-point flex all go down the drain when an LGX is NOT inflated to the max.
In other words, the rigidity of the CX and the Titan is even more superior to the LGX when someone prefers to fuck with a less than rock hard dick.

In my experience, the "adjustability" of LGX works just fine. And from reports I have read from CX and Titan uses, their adjustability is just fine, too. So, if a couple prefer less-than rock-hard fucking, there is complete parity among all the devices.

[Lost Sheep]

Also, any study using cadavers will not reflect any tunica stretching by any implant models in my opinion. That growth seem to take longer than any cadaver would remain viable.

Besides that, (in my opinion, which is not based in a medical or scientific degree of any kind), tunical "stretching" over time is not actually stretching (in an elastic sense), but growth of living tissue to accommodate chronic pressure.