FrankTalk.org

DougAnd wrote:roofer,
A study measured a large number of used IPPs. The LGX lasted an average of 29 months the CX lasted 39 months and the Titan 48 months. The LGX grew in length twice as fast as all the others. Apparently all IPPs stretch. Before everyone gets excited. The LGX only grew an average of 1/64 of an inch per month. So 1/4 inch every 16 months. The others grew 1/4 inch every 32 months on average.
More than 1750 used LGX cylinders were included. Titans were the lowest number of cylinders included. Obviously that is because A the LGX is much more popular and B the Titan lasts on average nearly twice as long. I posted the url last year I think don't have it anymore.
Hope this helps.

Is this the post that has the link you mention?
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11512&p=98892

medhatg wrote:

DougAnd wrote:roofer,
A study measured a large number of used IPPs. The LGX lasted an average of 29 months the CX lasted 39 months and the Titan 48 months. The LGX grew in length twice as fast as all the others. Apparently all IPPs stretch. Before everyone gets excited. The LGX only grew an average of 1/64 of an inch per month. So 1/4 inch every 16 months. The others grew 1/4 inch every 32 months on average.
More than 1750 used LGX cylinders were included. Titans were the lowest number of cylinders included. Obviously that is because A the LGX is much more popular and B the Titan lasts on average nearly twice as long. I posted the url last year I think don't have it anymore.
Hope this helps.

LGX -> 29 months: this is exactly how it lasted for me. It seems that Penile Implant is a very expensive hobby. lol.

DougAnd's post could be read to suggest (with AMS LGX's 29 months, AMS CX's 39 months and Coloplast Titan's 48 months) that the AMS devices have a shorter lifespan than Coloplast's. Note that (if I found the right study) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11512&p=98892 all the subjects in the study were selected due to failure of their implant. Such non-random selection often generates a bias. For the study, this bias was irrelevant. It was focused on length. Making conclusions for general longevity across the entire population of implants will suffer selection bias. One conclusion one could legitimately draw is that the AMS devices failures occur earlier in the lifespan of the implants. The study shows nothing regarding the failure rate of the implants past 3 years. That is, Coloplast Titans' failure rate may well catch up to AMS' failure rate at the 5 year, 7 year and 10 year marks. (Not likely, but possible.)

Put more succinctly, AMS devices destined to fail before the 10 year mark may all fail in the earliest years and Coloplast devices may spread their failures more evenly. It would be interesting to find a study that addressed that question.

As the owner of an AMS LGX, I would REALLY be interested in reading THAT!!!

So the bottom line seems to be, *WHEN* they fail, they are prone to fail on average around 29 months for LGX, 39 months for CX and 48 months for Titan. The study is not referring to ODDS OF FAILURE within a certain time but more how many months average, a device may last if it's defective and fated to fail prematurely.

Waynetho wrote:So the bottom line seems to be, *WHEN* they fail, they are prone to fail on average around 29 months for LGX, 39 months for CX and 48 months for Titan. The study is not referring to ODDS OF FAILURE within a certain time but more how many months average, a device may last if it's defective and fated to fail prematurely.

Yes, it seems that if an implant is destined to fail prematurely, it would be better to have a Titan. The study (as nearly as I can tell) says nothing about the general longevity of any of the three product lines.

But, I have to admit that if a device has a high number of early failures, the odds of high numbers throughout the service life are greater. I would REALLY like to know the TRUE average lifespan of the entire produce run of AMS LGXs (since that is what I have in me).

The good news is what Dr. Eid posted
https://www.urologicalcare.com/penile-i ... -implants/

My AMS LGX 700 lasted just 4.5 years (not the 10 or more years I had been told it would last). The left cylinder developed a leak in the bend/kink area, and the saline fluid leaked out. It was replaced by an AMS CX, which, although smaller, is still working after 2.5 years (although it usually won't inflate when needed).

wolfcreek wrote:My AMS LGX 700 lasted just 4.5 years (not the 10 or more years I had been told it would last). The left cylinder developed a leak in the bend/kink area, and the saline fluid leaked out. It was replaced by an AMS CX, which, although smaller, is still working after 2.5 years (although it usually won't inflate when needed).

Since you’ve tried both LGX and CX, I’ve a few questions:

1. which one feels good during sex?
2. why did doc go with CX instead of LGX as a replacement?
3. I heard CX can develop a kink like Titan but LGX is more natural when deflated, how true is this?
4. Which one feels more natural in deflated position?
5. Since your first implant failed after 4.5 years, did AMS give you a free replacement because of their 10 years warranty?

AMS replaced the device for free but I had to pay the surgeon about $9,000 to do the procedure itself.... It is smaller now because it doesn't expand up to 20% like the LGX does. The surgeon says the CX inplants tend to last longer than the LGX models do. Otherwise, the CX looks more or less like the same as the LGX. And feels and performs about the same also...

wolfcreek wrote:(edited for focus)
It is smaller now.

In what sense, smaller? Is your penis shorter or less girthy than it was with the previous implant?

The majority of revisions result in a longer implant (the data is not in yet on if that results in a longer usable penis). I have not heard specifics of anyone (absent other factors) coming out of a simple revision with a shorter implant/penis. That you have should be worthy of a medical journal article.

Lost Sheep wrote:

wolfcreek wrote:(edited for focus)
It is smaller now.

In what sense, smaller? Is your penis shorter or less girthy than it was with the previous implant?

The majority of revisions result in a longer implant (the data is not in yet on if that results in a longer usable penis). I have not heard specifics of anyone (absent other factors) coming out of a simple revision with a shorter implant/penis. That you have should be worthy of a medical journal article.

Yeah I would like to know this too. CX is smaller in what sense - girth or length?

I have planned to get LGX like LostSheep but hearing about the issues with LGX, I am wondering if I should go with CX?

indusvalley wrote:hearing about the issues with LGX...

I don't have any issues with my LGX; it works great!