I suppose I should add the AMS LGX to the mix.
Here is what ChatGPT had to say:
Given your specific anatomy, detailed goals, and filler considerations, the AMS LGX merits careful consideration. Here’s a structured analysis to help you determine if it’s appropriate for your case compared to the Titan OTR and AMS CX:
⸻
✅ Key Advantage of AMS LGX: Length Expansion
• The primary selling point of the LGX is its unique capability of length expansion, potentially increasing penile length post-surgery through consistent cycling and stretching protocols. Over the first year, an LGX implant typically gains approximately 1–2 cm (~0.5–0.75 inches) in penile length compared to initial post-operative measurements.
This is notably advantageous given your dedication to VED usage (currently achieving lengths up to 8.5 inches). The LGX is explicitly designed for patients prioritizing incremental length gains post-operatively.
⸻
❌ Potential Downsides of AMS LGX (Specific to Your Case):
1. Rigidity and Stiffness Limitations:
• LGX implants are softer and less rigid than Titan OTR and AMS CX.
• Given your filler-enhanced penile girth (up to 7.25 inches at the base), the LGX may have significant difficulty maintaining robust rigidity and angle. Heavier penile tissue (due to filler) increases downward force, risking reduced erection angles significantly.
2. Lower Erection Angle:
• Due to softer material and length-expansion mechanism, AMS LGX often produces lower erection angles (75–90° range, typically closer to horizontal or slightly below).
• Your stated priority is an erection angle significantly above horizontal (90° or greater). The LGX will likely fall short on this crucial requirement.
3. Filler-related Complications:
• The softer cylinders of LGX might struggle more to manage additional filler-induced soft tissue load, potentially producing a less stable erection and decreased satisfaction.
⸻
- Screenshot 2025-05-14 at 4.24.30 PM.png (148.42 KiB) Viewed 721 times
Detailed Recommendation for AMS LGX (Given Your Anatomy and Priorities):
• Consider AMS LGX ONLY if your top priority shifts clearly and dominantly to incremental post-operative length gains.
• If maximizing rigidity, erection angle, and adequately supporting filler-induced girth remains top priority (as you indicated clearly), then LGX is likely a poor choice for your specific circumstances.
- Screenshot 2025-05-14 at 4.24.40 PM.png (46.75 KiB) Viewed 721 times
• Filler impact: AMS LGX may be significantly challenged by filler-induced girth and weight. Rigidity and angle are particularly compromised.
⸻
⚠️ Realistic Risk Assessment for LGX in Your Case:
• Reduced Satisfaction Risk: High risk due to compromised rigidity and erection angle.
• Revision Risk: Increased possibility of implant revision if dissatisfaction arises from insufficient support of girth, rigidity, or erection angle.
⸻
✅ Final Verdict:
• AMS LGX is generally NOT the best option given your stated priorities:
• Maximizing rigidity (top priority)
• High erection angle
• Managing substantial filler-induced girth
Instead, your clear top-tier implant choice remains:
✅ Titan OTR (strongly recommended given filler, rigidity, angle needs)
⚠️ AMS CX (acceptable alternative, but inferior to Titan OTR for your situation)
❌ AMS LGX (generally not recommended unless length maximization overrides all other priorities)
⸻
Conclusion & Recommendation:
Unless your priorities shift heavily toward length gains alone—and you’re prepared to sacrifice rigidity, stability, and erection angle—the AMS LGX is not advisable.
Given your clearly articulated priorities (maximum stiffness, angle, filler support):
Titan OTR remains your best overall choice.
58 year-old male. Married. on TRT since 2013.
Length = 6.75". 8.25" in a vacuum tube. girth (with silicone filler) is 6.5".
Pills , Trimix in high concentrations, PRP and Gainswave therapy stopped working.
