Coloplast v AMS
Re: Coloplast v AMS
Removed wrong info
Last edited by TwoStep on Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Coloplast v AMS
I’m going to add something positive/optimistic for once. There was discussion that the study inadvertently showed poor survival of the prostheses:
But reading the abstract again it says:
So they’re conditioning on having had initial surgery (t1) and revision (t2) within a 9-year period. But for 0<t1<t2<9 years the average length of time from t1 to t2 is 3 years so the 29,39,48 months are not surprising when searching with this criterion (and the actual average lifespan may be longer).
merrix wrote:newbie443 wrote:
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).
But reading the abstract again it says:
We queried American Medical Systems and Coloplast Patient Information Form databases to identify patients who underwent IPP placement and replacement between 2004-2013.
So they’re conditioning on having had initial surgery (t1) and revision (t2) within a 9-year period. But for 0<t1<t2<9 years the average length of time from t1 to t2 is 3 years so the 29,39,48 months are not surprising when searching with this criterion (and the actual average lifespan may be longer).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 134 guests