The answer was in our signatures all along

[dan_bionic]

Great survey Principles!
It reflects the results of studies without being influenced by implant industry or surgeons.
I know there are limitations, for example, if the signatures are not update after a revision, but in general the data shows a great success of penile implants for the treatment of ED.
Cudos to you an thanks to all members of this forum, you all are doing a greta work and help others to find the solution!
Dan

[staphylococcusecoli]

100% agree with Dan. This is an absolutely stellar find by Principles. Dude, you're a super smart man! This table on mechanical failures is more than just enlightening, it provides profound, tangible hope for every brother on this journey. The data is incredible: the fact that 50% of IPP implanted men are still using their original, functioning devices after 20 years is a powerful testament to their durability and reliability. The failures happen only to the 1%. The 2.5 years median time to failure for Titan is just a 1% problem. It also proves a critical point: The reason we don't hear from these 20 year veterans on forums like FrankTalk is simple. They don't have time. They are too busy having sex. Get implanted. Have the best sex of your life. Age is just a number once you're implanted.

[tomas1]

I think the data is encouraging.

I do wonder if some of the posters had an implant and experienced problems, then posted on Frank Talk.
That could add to the failure rate.

I also believe that many guys got an implant without issues and never bothered to post.
All that means the survival rate could be slightly better than the data suggests.

[LetoMan]

This is interesting, but I remain fairly dubious of what value there is in analyzing forum comments (not to be negative, I appreciate the work that went into this). Yes, you extracted a result from the data that matches other methods of study, but what if it had been different? Meaning, whether the methodology is valid should not be determined based on whether the result looks acceptable.

What I mostly think is interesting is that you probably expose at least one bias in how we look at the data obtained in posts. You only count a user once, regardless of how many times they post. But I suspect that there is a strong correlation between number of posts per user and number of revisions per user, as users with more revisions are likely to have simply been around longer, have reasons to come back and start posting again when they get revisions, and generally have something to talk about (I.e., the likelihood of a “I’m getting a revision” post is likely orders of magnitude higher than a “nothing to report, no need for revision” post, which doesn’t even make sense in the first place.) I would be curious to see what the correlation is there, as that would help explain why there is a perception of higher incidence of revision than there actually is.

In that sense, I think the value of the analysis you are engaging in is probably less valuable when it comes to determining actual health outcomes, but likely has value in helping to understand how reported outcomes in places like this forum can affect perceptions.