Following up on questioning IPPs reliability

[UpNorth]

Do we know what percent are from experienced surgeons?
Or, what percent is the classic and percent of one touch?

I just can’t fathom that insurance companies would dish out that kind of money if they had a 30% failure rate.

[Wooody]

After starting this whole thread with:

This post is dedicated for those who want to critically appraise ipps reliability without involving emotions.

You seem to be the only one posting with any emotions in this thread:

I like how you ditched MAUDE (FDA) and coloplast statistic because you didn't like it ...
Scary numbers yeah...let's burry our heads and not only that...let's become propagantists ourselves and let those crappy devices thrive without any possibility of correction.

I don't know how your fog transformed yearly 30% (reported by the company itself!!!!) into lovely perito's 1%.

And most recently a bunch of F bombs.

Anyway, I could post positive testimonials and experiences to rebut your negative testimonials but what's the point. These sites and most other forums for that matter, are filled with users seeking help with their problems. Not so much "hey I've gone for years and years with this awesome product." I doubt I'll be anywhere near this site in a few more months, assuming I don't have any problems. And even if mine only lasts a few years, it will be totally worth it and I'll replace it. My woman and I have thoroughly enjoyed it so far.

And yes, it does matter if revisions are caused by surgeons doing shitty work or shitty products breaking. Why don't you want to recommend malleables again? Oh yeah, great product inexperienced doctors, right?

[LiverpoolLad]

You have MAUDE numbers lasthope publish monthly...it's about ~350 failures per month...given that 20-25k implants are installed anually in the U.S (keep in mind this is inclusive of mpps and that this number is published by companies and affiliated surgeons)...the ratio of failure (old or new implants) vs new implantation (revision + virgin cases) is 4.2k:22.5k is approx 0.2 which is 20% yearly failure.

It's just that the desperate like ourselves find it better to burry our heads in the sand for our mental wellbeing but that doesn't change the reality.

Do you understand that the 20-30% revisions you talk about, will be based on all implants not directly from the 20-25k figure you’re talking about. I understand this is added to the overall figure by nature, however basing the percentage from the 20-25k figure isn’t the way to work it out. There’s far more to it as ElbowRoom has said.

Anyway when are you going to stop yapping and get an implant? I suspect you’ll be one of the guys to find something to complain about anyway due to how you are interacting with others on this site.

No DO YOU UNDERSTAND that 20-30% yearly revision is a fucking big number ? Is it only for a specific year or is it yearly ? Elbowrooms claim will only make sense if it's 20-30% for a specific year (2021 per coloplast) and the previous fucking years were zero...I'm not saying that the yearly revisions are for the very same implants implanted that year...I can't fathom how fucked up the education system is for you to not realize simple math...are schools the culprit here or is it you trying to burry your head in the sand ?

What's "far more to it"

And my friend...complaining and cheerleading are two faces of the same coin....I'm appraising ipps reliability and this thread is dedicated for those who want to discuss it.

Please don't derail this thread's subject.

Nothing wrong with my education mate. I’m suspecting it will be for that Year 2021. Who really knows, it could vary each year.. why don’t you do some more research and write a dissertation on it? Get in touch with the companies. I’m sure that would be right up your street!

So what, you’re saying IPP’s are reliable? Huh?

As a young guy similar in age to yourself I certainly won’t be wasting any more time debating the nuances of statistics regarding penile implants. I’m sure you’ll find many a person to do that with on this site (looks like you already have) I hope you find whatever it is that you’re seeking from it

[Kodixx]

ElbowRoom, thank you for the clarification below. I agree the failure rate is challenging for multiple reasons :
- can't calculate a % unless you have a good 'total population' number to compare number of revisions against
- 'total population' is affected by how long you believe it should last before a revision is expected
- for me, I expect at least 8 years, so in a perfect world there'd be a 'total population' of 200,000 -- if 12 years, 300,000
- but, 'total population' is also affected by things like the number of guys who give up on having/using sexual function, guys with other health issue, guys who have to have revisions earlier, or guys who just die
- 'number of revisions' is also challenging -- for me, device reliability excludes botched surgeries, so that would have to be filtered out -- my surgery wasn't botched so I'm only interested in reliability of the device

From what I've read it looks like we're talking about this from multiple perspectives. Revisions per year for all implants ('total population'). Revisions per year for new implants. That's fine -- makes for a more interesting discussion -- also makes it a little more confusing

But if there's a thought that 20% of the entire 'total population' of implants require revision surgery every year, that doesn't even pass the sniff test. That would be like 40,000 to 60,000 revisions annually -- or 3,000 to 5,000 monthly. There's just no logic to get there. And it gets worse if the surgeries are only for device failures vs botched surgeries.

If there's a thought that 20% of new implants require revision surgery within a year, just for device failure, that doesn't pass the sniff test either. There's no way the FDA, insurance companies, much less us customers would continue to participate. That would be like 400 revisions every month just for brand new (within a year) devices -- excluding botched surgeries. And that number would just snowball considering 20% of the new devices implanted during the revision would fail within a year. Again, there's just no logic to get there.

- Chuck

I'm sorry, no...my calculation is correct. The cited stat is that 30% of surgeries performed per year are revisions. NOT revisions of original surgeries PERFORMED that year. Those revision surgeries could have been for implants implanted the same year or 20 years previously. So you have to look at the total number of working implants in place across all years, and then divide by the number of revision surgeries performed to get the failure rate.

Since only Coloplast surgeries were cited, we can assume probably as many revisions were performed using AMS...so double the rate I quoted and you end up with 3-4% failures per year. Do you really think IPPs have a 20% failure rate in the same year they are implanted? That's ludicrous and there would be recalls on them immediately, no medical device could be FDA approved with that failure rate.

I'm not being biased I'm making reasonable assertions about the stats. If anything my numbers are conservative as I only cited 200,000 implants in use and only went back 20 years. There are probably more than that in place and some in operation longer than 20 years.

I'm not cheerleading anything, I'm looking objectively at the failure rates and I'm neither cheerleading nor "doon and gloom" about IPPs. I'm pre-op on my implant and believe me I would not serve my own purposes by barreling headlong into a surgery that would likely end up as a personal disaster. If I thought that was the case or the data supported that, I'd say so and cancel my scheduled surgery.

[ElbowRoom]

You have MAUDE numbers lasthope publish monthly...it's about ~350 failures per month...given that 20-25k implants are installed anually in the U.S (keep in mind this is inclusive of mpps and that this number is published by companies and affiliated surgeons)...the ratio of failure (old or new implants) vs new implantation (revision + virgin cases) is 4.2k:22.5k is approx 0.2 which is 20% yearly failure.

It's just that the desperate like ourselves find it better to burry our heads in the sand for our mental wellbeing but that doesn't change the reality.

You need to stop. The 3000 number I used was as I stated a *made up* number, for mathematical simplicity. Okay, the number is 4200...or 42000...it doesn't matter because the stat cited was percent of surgeries in a year that are revisions:30%. It doesn't matter what the actual number is, we only know it's 30% of the total. So if it's 4200 revisions than the total surgeries are 14,000. The percentage stays the same. Yay math!

You keep arguing that all revision surgeries performed in a year are performed against original implantations done that SAME year, which is not only incorrect it's ludicrous on its face. Zero people with implants over 12 months old had revisions?

Revision surgeries are performed against the entire population of implants, not only the ones done the same year. If you can't see this you need a remedial statistics course.

[ElbowRoom]

No DO YOU UNDERSTAND that 20-30% yearly revision is a fucking big number ? Is it only for a specific year or is it yearly ?

It is a big number, but it's not a true number. Look at the cited stat that started all this:

"Approximately 30% of IPPs implanted in 2021 were revision surgeries"

So in 2021, 30% of all implant surgeries were for revisions. How many revision surgeries were there? How many total? We don't know, that's not stated. But we know that ~30% of the total were revisions.

We know that 10,000 - 25,000 surgeries are performed per year. We have to pick a number to make a calculation. Let's say its 15,000. Now let's stipulate that in previous years, a like number of surgeries were performed. So how far do you want to go back? I chose 20 years because it's about the practical life limit of an implant. So then, 15,000 x 20 years = 300,000 total implants in use total.

Now lets take the 15,000 x 30% and see that 4500 surgeries were revision surgeries. Those 4500 were performed against *all* implants in use, not just the total for 2021. In our example, that's 300,000 total implants in use.

4500 / 300000 = 0.015 = 1.5%.

That's exactly the same number I came up with using different assumption numbers because the percentages are the same. You can fudge the numbers and say there are more or less than 300,000 implants out there and get *slightly* different numbers. But what you're not going to get is a 20% failure rate per year for all implants.

All implants *will* fail. They will not fail at a rate of 20% annually.

[ElbowRoom]

And talking about those who are busy fucking... even miss lena paul here noticed the revision surgeries from her fellow "real" busy fuckers and don't tell me they had it for a long time

https://youtu.be/LujVdPf0_ps?si=GJkV67T4IBWAb0nO

Watch from 4:00 to 4:16

Again my claim has numbers...presence of offline busy fuckers don't change those numbers...presence of "yappers" and "cheerleaders" on forums don't change those as well..

A porn star's anecdotal observation is not valid argument, any more than pointing to a guy who's had his first implant for 20 years means they never fail.

Nor are your calculations correct. I've provided mine completely as well as all of my assumptions. Where are yours, other than "OMG 20-30% of all implants fail per year!"

[Courage]

You know, I should've seen it off the bat: our tooyoung is a troll. Well played, sirrah, well played.

[ElbowRoom]

Yeah a pornstar anecdote is invalid but that of a sales rep is

Even sales reps say 30% oh man

Find me one AMS or Coloplast rep that has said "These implants fail at a rate of 30% per year."

I thought you were ignorant or a troll. Now I'm leaning toward mental defective.

[frank66665]

In my opinion the article simply says that during the year 20 to 30% of the operations are carried out by overhauls, the remaining 70/80% are first installations, it does not refer in any way to breakages or malfunctions in annual percentages