What is the earliest age one should get an implant?

[Lost Sheep]

Hi guys thanks for the replies. According to my research by the 5th revision the chance of infection is near enough 100%. Provided you can get to revision 5 without being infected and if it wears out an average of 5 years I would be dickless in my 50s

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29795529/

“The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01).”


Shit position to be in either way. But I feel they really need to work hard on making these implants more durable. I can get my shaft hard but it has a bit indent in it which an implant would get rid of. Glans are always soft but I hear they are soft with an implant anyway

The abstract concludes "These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery."

It certainly would if we could rely on these data. I not that the original cohort consisted of a rather small sample, 44 men. and the final data included only two men. Hardly a statistically persuasive sample size.

But I take your point. Risk does increase the more times you go under the knife in the same area on the body. Apparently a lot more so than if a virgin site was operated on.

It would be interesting to note how many times this article gets cited in further studies which might be an indication of the credence other researchers give it.

[mr.skin]

@Lost Sheep
I am a bit tipsy right now, but your first elaboration was incorrect.

If you habe a 20-sided die the probability of each side occuring is 5 %. Correct.

But the probability of in 20 turns reaching one specific side (e.g. one) is 20 x 0.05.

That would imply that in 20 turns, every side would be hit at least once which means 100% certainty that no side would be missed. How likely is that?

That, my dear, would be a completely
different calculation. But one side occuring at least one matches the data i have sent.

[tomas1]

My head's starting to hurt.
I refuse to believe that in X number of surgeries the incidence of infection is 100%.

[Lost Sheep]

I apologize for being complicit in the hijacking of this thread away from the original question to the peripheral one of evaluating the risk related to the initial question.

I have started another thread
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=12827
dedicated to examining the question of increasing risk of multiple revisions.

Thank you all, who transfer their contributions to the question to that thread so that this thread can return to the initial question. (To which, I think, Alibaba actually gave the definitive answer).

When your dick does not get hard and other methods fail post pubescent ....(edited down)... The overall basis is need. Not age.

Lost Sheep

[Zeckelbaum]

Hi guys thanks for the replies. According to my research by the 5th revision the chance of infection is near enough 100%. Provided you can get to revision 5 without being infected and if it wears out an average of 5 years I would be dickless in my 50s

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29795529/

“The risk of specific device infection was strongly correlated and increased based on number of prior IPPs: 1st (6.8%; 3/44), 2nd (18.2%; 4/22), 3rd (33.3%; 4/12), 4th (50%; 4/8), and 5th (100%; 2/2) (R2 = 0.90, p = 0.01).”


Shit position to be in either way. But I feel they really need to work hard on making these implants more durable. I can get my shaft hard but it has a bit indent in it which an implant would get rid of. Glans are always soft but I hear they are soft with an implant anyway

The abstract concludes "These data represent a change in paradigm on revision prosthetic surgery."

It certainly would if we could rely on these data. I not that the original cohort consisted of a rather small sample, 44 men. and the final data included only two men. Hardly a statistically persuasive sample size.

But I take your point. Risk does increase the more times you go under the knife in the same area on the body. Apparently a lot more so than if a virgin site was operated on.

It would be interesting to note how many times this article gets cited in further studies which might be an indication of the credence other researchers give it.

Certainly hard to get much of a sample size for guys who have got to their 5th implant I imagine. Either way I dont want to take my chances of being dickless while still being middle aged. There needs to be a technology improvement asap. Nor do I want to have an implant and have to be super frugal about when I use it to stop it wearing out fast.

[FMLFML85]

deleted

[alibaba]

I know 2 people who have had 5 revisions and neither have had an infection despite the first doctors they saw being hacks that likely bought their medical license off a traveling wagon thus causing the need for revisions to get something usable.

[Zeckelbaum]

Research? Stop spreading bs. There’s no where it says 5 revisions = 100% erection chance. Only story I heard about someone losing there dick was from a foreigner who got imprisoned after being implanted. Where does it even say the infection risk increases at the 2nd revision. Please don’t put miss information on here and scaring off younger men like me.

Mate...I’m looking into an implant myself and am just airing concerns I have based on things I’ve come across. If you’d rather put your head in the sand and look at the positives only then that’s your look out, not what I’m about though

[LeRoastBeef]

If you had 100% probability at revision 5 then that would mean 20% probability risk of infection per revision. Yes?

It's not that high, it's not close to it.

I am aware that revision is riskier than virgin implantation, I am not aware that the risk per operation increases for subsequent revisions. If it did then that would of course make things more difficult to quantify. Is there evidence of this?

Kramer (who I admit is great) is less than one percent. He often sorts out initial mistakes of other surgeons. Revisions seem to be his thing.

There are many surgeons that are great, many more that are very good.

[FMLFML85]

deleted