losing length and other questions

The final frontier. Deciding when, if and how.
2435tjklAS
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:17 pm

Re: losing length and other questions

Postby 2435tjklAS » Wed May 13, 2026 6:05 pm

LetoMan wrote:
2435tjklAS wrote:It bothers me that "losing size" is such a common (and misleading) statement about implants and I can't tell who understands what's accurate.


Like I’ve said before, implants are like Schroedinger’s cat: according to guys in this forum, implants are simultaneously making our dicks smaller AND bigger!

But when you look at the actual scientific evidence, when properly sized and after a cycling protocol of a year or so, they basically just get us back to the size we were pre-implant.

After a year or so the size is significantly larger than pre-implant. Why? Because "pre-implant" means pre-VED. The patient is often some dude in his 60s with so much fibrosis in his impotent penis that his very weak "erections" are inches less than they were in his good ole days. What you're saying might be right if you are analyzing a group of old dudes who have used VEDs to fully treat or heal their fibrosis then used their post-implant size but practically hardly anyone has done that.

Most impotent 60 year olds don't feel motivated to use a VED 3 times a week for 20 or 30 minutes. But when they start seeking an implant the evidence is very clear quite literally and cited by countless experts that VEDs are necessary to allow surgeons to have space required to match patients with the true size of their penis from its days back as a horny 22-year old. Evidence: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18561&p=169469#p169469

You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:
Image

Pre-implant baseline was 14cm. Post was 17cm, or 1.18 inches. Also....THIS IS IMPORTANT....

That stupid study only had the patients use VED therapy for 6 months and they didn't do shit for the next 6 months, which other evidence claims is the strongest timeframe for when real gains occur, and then they measured them after a year:

“...after 1 year of follow-up from AMS™LGX700® penile prosthesis implant with 6 months of vacuum erectile device therapy.”

“Postoperatively, patients were assigned vacuum device therapy for 5 min twice daily. Follow-up continued for 1 year after surgery.”

This long discussion I had with Discovernew where I didn't discover it was only 6 months of therapy after: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26381&start=30

You said: "when you look at the actual scientific evidence, when properly sized and after a cycling protocol of a year or so, they basically just get us back to the size we were pre-implant."

Link your sources. Good luck.

Conclusion: merely looking at implants as a way for most patients to heal fibrosis already creates significant evidence that VEDs and implants increase the current size of your penis. Certain devices like the LGX that have proven stretch capabilities increases it even further.
40. AMS 700 LGX, 21+3. Nov. '21. Replaced Titan 28cm, Jan. '25

Proved implants increase dick size

Abused alcohol for brain injury, abused viagra for implant

Pre-op size: 8.75" x 5.7"

Current: 9"x6"

Goal: 10" x 6"+

LetoMan
Posts: 471
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:25 pm

Re: losing length and other questions

Postby LetoMan » Wed May 13, 2026 7:55 pm

2435tjklAS wrote:
You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:


Dude. You really should read the study you got your chart from. It clarifies that “baseline” is a stretch test. Preop ICI is the measurement obtained by a preop intercavernous injection of alprostadil. And those numbers are virtually identical 48 months postop. The study authors were entirely clear on this, specifically saying that “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up.”

Translation: THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE.

If you wanted to show why a stretch test is a bad indicator of potential erection size, boom, you found your smoking gun.

Study available here: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d88 ... action.pdf?
Born 1974. Implanted 5/21/2024. AMS 700 CX 21cm, 3cm RTE. Penoscrotal. Venous leak my whole life. Pills helped, but hated the side effects; worked less as I aged. Skipped injections. Grateful to bionic brotherhood that helped me make this decision.

staphylococcusecoli
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2025 10:46 am

Re: losing length and other questions

Postby staphylococcusecoli » Wed May 13, 2026 8:36 pm

LetoMan wrote:
2435tjklAS wrote:
You said pre-implants is the same size as post implant. It's not:


Dude. You really should read the study you got your chart from. It clarifies that “baseline” is a stretch test. Preop ICI is the measurement obtained by a preop intercavernous injection of alprostadil. And those numbers are virtually identical 48 months postop. The study authors were entirely clear on this, specifically saying that “more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI-induced penile length and measurements at the end of follow-up.”

Translation: THEIR DICKS WERE THE SAME FUCKING SIZE.

If you wanted to show why a stretch test is a bad indicator of potential erection size, boom, you found your smoking gun.

Study available here: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/d88 ... action.pdf?


Thank you LetoMan for fishing out the paper. You sound like a genius scientific researcher.

Study Summary (Whatever the heck it means. Size increase or not, folks?)

1. Prospective, two-institution, non-randomized study: 106 enrolled, 32 excluded, and 74 selected/completed follow-up after AMS LGX 700 IPP.

2. Patients activated/cycled the device early, then used VED without constriction ring for 5 minutes twice daily after full inflation; methods state this was for 12 weeks.

3. Median length was 14 cm stretched baseline, 17 cm after pre-op injection, and 17 cm at 48 weeks; final length matched injection-induced pre-op length.

4. Median girth was 9 cm baseline, 11 cm after pre-op injection, and 11 cm at 48 weeks; IIEF-5 improved from 9 to 25 at 1 year.

5. Main limitation: no randomized control arm, so results suggest feasibility/satisfaction but do not prove VED caused the improvements.


Return to “Implants”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 2435tjklAS, AhrefsBot, amazonbot, ClaudeBot, Facebook, Midwest1964 and 81 guests