FrankTalk.org

Pquigs wrote:Folks. I am going thru some very huge regret

With venous leak my erections were lasting less and less. So I reluctantly got an implant. To avoid losing more size down road.

I was about 6.25 inches erect and more girth before implant

My length two months after is 5.75may be a bit more pressing into public bone. My girth is 5”

Am I too short to satisfy a partner. I am a single 56 yr guy wanting to date and find another partner in life after losing my wife.

Any insight would be great.

Thx

Congrats, you're still larger than average. You have more than enough to make a partner happy. Having a working 5" dick would still be more satisfying to a partner than a non-functioning 8" dick. So chill out about that part.

Beyond that, I went from about 6" to a bit over 5.5" length when I got my implant. In the nearly 1 year since, I've come back up to 5.75" or so. Zero complaints from my partner. Quite the opposite, really!

I am in the same boat
With Tri mix shots I was 6.5" L and 6.0 girth ( which I was very proud of)
I could have gone on for many years without implant.
Reading reviews got carried away and got implanted six month ago
now i am barely 6 L which is not bad but get this the girth is barely 5 and no hope for getting back .
To me the biggest draw back of this technology is the loss of girth which is hardly mentioned
here on the board. Also the shape of the penis is now oval. Girth is the most important aspect of a desirable penis not length.
Ask any female.
I am trying to be honest and objective in my reply.
My advice to guys contemplating penile implant consider the following:
1. Don't do it if you can complete intercourse with pills, rings or shots.
2. If intercourse is not possible for lack of rigidity penile implant is the best alternative
3. Getting it done for any other reason will be disappointing
wonder how many poster are actually from surgeon's offices or prostheses manufacturers .
It is now convenient for me since I don't have to plan activities in advance.
That's the only consolation

To me the biggest draw back of this technology is the loss of girth which is hardly mentioned
here on the board. Also the shape of the penis is now oval. Girth is the most important aspect of a desirable penis not length.
Ask any female.

Couldn’t agree more! My guess is that men with zero function (and are older) care less about cosmetics. I was never informed about losing girth or the shape of my penis changing. Potential candidates need to know so they can make an informed decison. Pills stopped working for me due to VL and injections didn’t work very well.

All in all I’m very satisfied with Dr. Eid and the surgery.

naslimn wrote:I(edited for focus)
I am trying to be honest and objective in my reply.
My advice to guys contemplating penile implant consider the following:
1. Don't do it if you can complete intercourse with pills, rings or shots.
2. If intercourse is not possible for lack of rigidity penile implant is the best alternative
3. Getting it done for any other reason will be disappointing
wonder how many poster are actually from surgeon's offices or prostheses manufacturers .
It is now convenient for me since I don't have to plan activities in advance.
That's the only consolation

I hear you, naslimn and sympathize with your disappointment. A hard lesson to learn. I hope your experience as time progresses will improve, but your advice is sound.

What wunhumglo said "My guess is that men with zero function..." is spot-on. If one can have satisfactory sex (even if that sex is non-coital) one should opt for an implant very cautiously. It is radical, invasive, slightly risky, and very likely forever destroys whatever erectile function still exists.

I very seriously doubt, however, that surgeon's offices are planting shills here. The idea that some surgeons are self-promoting has been suggested before, and may have some merit, but almost all the success stories I have read hear have the ring of truth.

Any man who jumps into an implant (mixed meaphor, there) without fully investigating the devices, the procedure AND his surgeon, in my opinion, is taking a risk. If taking that risk is a considered decision, that is a choice. (I recognize that many patients prefer to put their medical care in the hands of their medical care team without making themselves a part of the decision-making process. I do not fault them for that approach. I take the opposite approach and make myself an integral part of my care team, knowledge and decision-making.)

Pquigs wrote:Paul Perito did my implant

He does a boatload. And got high reviews

Pq

In my research i would not choose Perito to maintain my size. First he mostly deals with retired men who don't mind not being aggressively sized.

Secondly, he does the infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing.

Thanks for giving us some insights into his technique.

LuisFernandez wrote:

Pquigs wrote:Paul Perito did my implant

He does a boatload. And got high reviews

Pq

Secondly, he does the infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing.

Could you elaborate on (infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing)? I don't understand why it is inferior in sizing.

AST2123 wrote:

LuisFernandez wrote:

Pquigs wrote:Paul Perito did my implant

He does a boatload. And got high reviews

Pq

Secondly, he does the infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing.

Could you elaborate on (infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing)? I don't understand why it is inferior in sizing.

This is copied from a document written by Dr Eid; I'll admit it doesn't elaborate much as to WHY the infrapubic approach is inferior, but does state that he believes the scrotal approach gives a longer length.

"Performing the surgery through a midline scrotal incision will not only result in a better cosmetic outcome (scar will be concealed by the natural raphe) but also will maximize length. Making a transverse incision above the penis or below the penis will result in a more distal (closer to the glans penis) incision onto the shaft of the penis often beyond the body plane or bodyline. Input cylinder tubes that exit the penis and connect the cylinders to the pump are more likely to be visible and palpable by the patient and partner. Scar tissue will also form on the part of the penis that is supposed to stretch with an erection decreasing the overall length of the erect penis. Regarding the "above the penis" surgical approach, tubing from the cylinders will exit the base of the shaft at the 12 o'clock position and make a 180 degree turn to reach the scrotal pump. This tubing will therefore be palpable at the base of the lateral aspect of the shaft of the penis on the right, may rub and be painful during intercourse and even limit the depth of penetration. This can be particularly annoying for the thin patient."

AST2123 wrote:Could you elaborate on (infrapubic approach which is inferior when it comes to sizing)? I don't understand why it is inferior in sizing.

Sure:

Take a look as to why scrotal approach is better: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25339138/

"Compared with infrapubic, transcrotal placement resulted in a longer total prosthesis (22.3 cm vs 20.6 cm, P < 0.0001), increased proximal dilation (10.1 cm vs 8.6 cm, P < 0.0001), longer RTEs (1.9 cm vs 1.2 cm, P < 0.0001) and larger reservoir fill volume (79 cc vs 71 cc, P = 0.0003)."

I have to agree with Wolfpacker & Luis. My observation from members complaints is the tubing routing is totally bass ackwards. I've read of several members that reported that the tubing comes out forward, loops around the shaft not buried very deep. Then goes down to the pump. Deep thrusting can push the tubing into the shaft rather strongly on some men causing discomfort. Also, depending on anatomy, there is a chance of not having enough tubing to get the pump low enough to pump it very well. If the incision is too far out (distal?). Then to get the tubing to exit the incision correctly might encourage the doctor to use too many RTE's.
If you watch enough videos. You'll notice that most surgeons hold the tubing putting their finger on the tubing to implant junction to push the rear of the implant in. Thus on a pubic surgery, it is almost a given that the tubing will face forward which leads to the chance of my issues.
Just too many things have to go right for my taste. Why take several chances for an error to be made? Now having said all of that, I know that there are happy patients using this approach.

Thanks guys for your answers.
Since there are these 2 concepts around. There should be some Pros and Cons for each of them. From what I read above, it seems that penoscrotal is way better than the infrapubic, and accordingly, the latter could be used only when penoscrotal is not possible (not sure in which condition). I had an inguinal hernia surgery before, and the reservoir location was a kind of challenging. Was infrapubic recommended for this reason for me? What about others who got infrapubic, is it because of the faster healing compared to penoscrotal?