Well, I keep thinking about this and I might have come up with some better counterarguments to my position than Discovernew did.
(No offense, lol.) This was my first answer to why stretch flaccid (SF) wasn't included in the final results. It might be wrong:
2435tjklAS wrote:Because it didn't get much bigger under the methods used in this study...
The doctors didn't report their post-implant stretched flaccid sizes since they didn't get much bigger due to crappy conservative advice doctors are forced to give. They told the patients to cycle for 15 minutes twice a day. Mainly because a study that proves and tells a bunch of dudes that they can make their dicks bigger if for 1 hour a day+ they cycle and use VEDs and stretch it and Perito's THE it is dangerous and they’d probably get sued. But they do know it works.
Those patients in the medical study were under clinical conditions and by signature agreements had no other option but to follow those directions. Men in FrankTalk also took those directions literally. Now you don't have to and should know better.
I know my stretched flaccid increased from 8.75" to 9.5" after recovery from LGX because I did not follow the advice of professionals trying to avoid health insurance requirements and malpractice suits.
Same reason loss of size has been the #1 patient complaint ever since penile implants were invented. Because the patients who complained were a bunch of pussies who didn't exercise it.
VED use 10-15 minutes twice per day post-implant is a much stronger and more effective exercise than cycling alone. But if they report gains from their initial stretched flaccid length of 14cm, there are lots of implications with publishing that. For one, it would document that a penis can anatomically become notably bigger indefinitely. There's no science and no studies that state that is possible with any body parts, especially regarding dicks. ChatGPT agrees and tells me even for products like Phallosan the studies are weak. To medically make dick sizes increase, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. And no one would believe it. Would be viewed as a total scam. But that does raise the question...
If a larger SF happened but wasn't reported, why was ICI size 17cm before and erect size with fully inflated LGX 17cm after? That would, indeed, confirm Discovernew’s main (only?) argument that the study shows there were no actual size gains. Still, they do show real gains from where they were before VED/implant, and their current usable size was improved and now reliable, which is the most important part. But how did VED post not make it bigger than ICI before surgery? I think that can happen - if those patients used a VED and after several months never got an implant, their SF length would not change. The LGX is documented to expand from its initial size unlike other implants. Put one in a perfectly recovered dick that suffered from ED, exercise it that much, and the full SF length would probably become longer. No?
I just read this part and baseline length numbers compared to final ones do increase their range from before. ICI started 17cm with range between 11–19, and 48 weeks still reported 17cm length, but the range increased up to 13–23:
Comparing penile sizes at any time during follow-up, penile length outcomes were always statistically sig- nificantly increased (p < 0.0001). Data regarding girth showed variation postoperatively when compared with the baseline, but at the end of follow-up, the dimensions remained not-statistically different from those obtained via the preoperative ICI [median 11 cm (range 9–12) vs. 11 cm (range 10–13); p = 0.36] (see Fig. 1b). No patient reported a shortening in the length compared to the baseline flaccid stretched measurements [median 14 cm (range 10–17) vs. 17 cm (range 13–23); p < 0.0001] while, more importantly, no statistical difference was seen between the baseline ICI- induced penile length and the measurements at the end of follow-up median 17 cm (range 11–19) vs. 17 cm (range 13–23); p = 0.48] (see Fig. 1a).
That is an increase of some kind. Maybe it wasn't more because I found something that confirms VEDs were used before, but... patients started using them only 3 weeks earlier.
Crap, sorry, rereading this I don't think this says anything about preop VED (or maybe it does?):
In our experience the minimally invasive infrapubic approach allowed our patients to activate the device early, after a median of 8 days (range 5–12) from the surgery. This early activation might be able to support the device expansion within the corpora and to prevent the formation of a rigid pseudo-capsule surrounding the cylinders. Moreover, the beginning of an early postoperative VED program (starting from 3 weeks form [sic] the surgery) was seen to be safe and effective in stretching the tunica and allowing the device to expand progressively in the surrounding tissues during follow-up was achieved. This is primarily seen in the maintenance of erect length and girth in our population over the course of the study. This is also seen in the increasing trend in the number of the pumps required to fully activate the device [1st activation: median 12 (range 8–16) vs. 48 weeks: median 24 (range 18–29); p < 0.0001). Unlike Henry et al., we did not report a reduction in post- operative pumps to activate the device in the first post- operative period. This could be explained by our use of a minimally invasive infrapubic approach as compared to the penoscrotal approach and from the beneficial effects of early use of the VED.
Well, I did prove VEDs were used before the surgery. But why won't they tell us for how long? The "form" typo I read first as "from" and thought it meant before. But in that sentence is "postoperative" so I assume it's after.
Theory: post-op length did not increase from SF. Why? Maybe because SF wasn't treated enough to be able to, making post-op size no bigger than 17 cm though with a bigger range. But if ICIs were taken after months of VEDs, in that situation, ICIs would have been higher pre. Post is likely higher than that thanks to LGX expansion.
So, new question: why the heck didn't these skilled urologists who know about and wrote about the Sellers study not tell us about the timeframe of its use? Sellers says to do it for 2 months:
Still lots of questions about this study, but in some ways I think the surprisingly limited VED preparation that led to bigger length ranges but not higher than 17cm does indicate there were very much size increases but not by much.
Ending theory: months of VED use pre and more post like 30 minutes a day would have increased sizes significantly. Maybe that's why the study doesn't mention VED use time before. If they did start them months before, the results show a much bigger dick size occurred, but would anyone but AMS want it published?
Hope I'm not rambling. Any thoughts?
