Girth theory: Pumping vs. clamping

Having spent enough time actually using both methods here’s what I noticed.
This is comparing one cable clamp to water pumping at around 4”hg.

The sensation of stretch and internal pressure is the same.
Minute for minute the amount of edema is the same.
The incidence of red spots and discolouration is the same.
The post workout feeling of fatigue/soreness is the same.
The cumulative negative effect on EQ is the same if no rest is taken.
The lack of results after months was the same.

That’s actual experience rather than speculation.
Does it mean neither work ? No, just didn’t work for me but I think they both increase internal pressure, this nonsense about a partial vacuum just sucking on the skin needs to be laid to rest.

Did you ever use both at the same time?(or one after the other, 5 minutes this then 5 minutes that..)

There is a good probability, particularly if a clamp is placed at full erection (which is the goal), that the inter-cavernous pressures are far, far higher than with pumping (even at 15 inches Hg).

No, is it worth trying ?

We report on a potent man with normal erectile function who, during use of a nonmedical, catalog type vacuum erection device, suffered Peyronie’s disease and vasculogenetic impotence.

CASE HISTORY

H. O., a 66-year-old potent, sexually active white man experienced for rigid and sustain spontaneous erections. In addition to regular sexual relations, he used a nonmedical vacuum erection device consisting of a cylinder, and pump (without a pressure-release valve) and doughnut shaped rings the base (without tension bands) as an outlet for self-stimulation before masturbation approximately once per month. The device advertised as “providing extra strong suction” and it created extremely rigid erections. He continued to create additional vacuum, which further stretch the penis, and magnify the erectile rigidity and size. He claimed that the vacuum device created “the most unbelievably hard and largest erection he ever had in his life” and maintain the erection for approximately 15 minutes. While denied immediate pain, swelling or ecchymosis [bruising], the intense inflation of the penis was associated with unusual pressure discomfort.

During the next few weeks the patient noticed a change in quality of the stimulated erection. He gradual experience difficulty with vaginal penetration due to increased dorsal curvature, diminished rigidity and decreased erectile maintenance. After two years of progressive dysfunction he presented for assessment.

Physical examination revealed the dorsal plaque on the mid shaft of the penis consistent with Peyronie’s disease. Nocturnal penile tumescence testing revealed diminished rigidity and duration of erections. Office intracavernous injection testing with vasoactive agents induced a partial short-lived erection. Dynamic infusion of pharmaco-cavernosometry with repeated dosing (times 3) revealed veno-occlusive and arterial erection dysfunction with normal flows-to-maintain (5 to 9 ml. per minute, normal less than 3), the less outflow resistance (11 to 16 mm. Hg per minute per ml., normal 30 to 50), pressure decay (78 mm. Hg for 30 seconds, normal less than 45) values and abnormal cavernous arterial artery gradients on the left and right sides (35 and 58 mm. Hg, respectively, normal less than 30). Pharmaco-cavernosography [injecting x-ray dye into the penis cavernosa] demonstrated bilateral proximal [closer to the body – at the base 0f the penis] site specific leak and Peyronie’s disease.

DISCUSSION

Medical vacuum erection devices provide a safe, effective inexpensive and noninvasive therapeutic option for impotent patients. Associated complications include difficulty with erection, penile pain, ecchymosis, hematomas, petechiae and skin necrosis. Vacuum erection devices create negative intracavernous pressure and, thus, high stretching forces on the penis, causing blood to enter the lacunar spaces independent of smooth muscle relaxation. Nonmedical vacuum erection devices have been advertised primarily for purposes of improving erection, penile lengthening and auto stimulation. Medical vacuum devices differ from nonmedical apparatuses in that the former use pressure-release valves to restrict the negative sub atmospheric pressure to 300 to 500 mm. Hg (14 to 21.5 inches mercury [inches Hg], normal use range 100 to 200 mm. Hg or 4 to 7 inches mercury). Continued unabated stretching during vacuum erection may result in large magnitude pulling forces up to 10 times those of physiological erection, which may result in focal [very specific] injury to the tunica albuginea. Such vacuum induced tunical injury has been reported previously. In addition, our patient demonstrated new onset vasculogenic impotence and a site-specific crural leakage pattern on pharmaco-cavernosography.

While veno-occlusive dysfunction is frequently associated with Peyronie’s disease, reported site of Peyronie’s disease related abnormal venous drainage on pharmaco-cavernosography has been localized to the plaque, that is the so-called pitchfork sign. Since pharmaco-cavernosography in our patient revealed the leakage to be crural and unrelated to the dorsal mid shaft plaque, we hypothesized that the hemodynamic abnormality was secondary to the intense pulling force on the crura, the site of attachment of the corpora to the ischiopubic ramus [where the root of the penis is attached about to keep it rooted to the body] and the most likely location for high magnitude forces to exert an abnormal injury affect. Thus, we believe there were 2 complications, Peyronie’s disease and vasculogenic impotence, induced by the pulling forces, which were analyzed to be approximately 29 pounds (the weight of a 19-inch color television set attached to the erect shaft). To our knowledge we report the second case of vacuum induced Peyronie’s disease and the first case of vacuum induced vasculogenic impotence. The patient underwent Nesbit plication procedure and presently uses self-injection therapy for satisfactory sexual activity. While to our knowledge there have been no previously recognize consultations to the use of a vacuum erection device during erection, it is possible that the pressure-release valve would have decreased the risk of penile injury.

APPENDIX: ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES TO DETERMINE PULLING FORCES ON THE ERECT PENIS ASSOCITAED WITH SEXUAL AND VACUUM INDUCED ERECTION

The pulling forces (F pulling) on the erect penis is considered the force exerted on the corporeal bodies during erection that induce penile stretching. The pulling force during erection may be calculated using the expression:

F pulling = (P internal – P external) x A

where A is the circular cross-sectional area of the erect penis, P internal is the intracavernous pressure during erection and P external is the atmospheric pressure.

Sexual erection. The pulling force during sexual erections may be calculated assuming that an erect penile diameter (D) is 1.5 inches (then A = πD^2/4, approximately equal to 1.77 mm. Hg (1.74 pounds per square inch [3.4 inches Hg]) and the atmospheric pressure is zero. Therefore, the calculated pulling force during sexual erection is approximately 3 pounds.

Vacuum induced erection. The pulling force during vacuum induced erections may be calculated assuming that an erect penile diameter of 1.5 inches, the intracavernous pressure during sexual erection is 1.74 pounds per square inch and assuming there is near total vacuum, the external pressure is (-) 14.7 pounds per square inch [30 inches Hg]. Thus, (P internal – P external) = (+) 16.4 pounds per square [33.4 inches Hg] or 29 pounds.

The pulling force during vacuum induced erection is increased almost 10-fold compared to sexual erection. The magnitude of pulling force in the aforementioned example is equivalent to that of a 19-inch television being suspended from the penis. (This calculation assumes no change in penile diameter and internal pressure during vacuum erection. However, the effect of the vacuum device may be expected to produce even larger pressure and larger penile diameters, thereby creating even greater pulling forces on the vacuum induced erection.)

Perhaps he was pumping his balls too? I find hard to think that the root of the penis can be damaged faster than the glans when pumping (or clamping, at this regard). Also the urethra should be way more prone to rupture than other penile tissues. Of course this is just what I get if I figure out what happened to NannyPumpy there.

That’s the point. I wouldn’t guess the crura is the place of least resistance. We hear a good number of injuries with the pump (or hanger, since they are calculating the lengthwise pulling force if I got it right): to urhetra, glans, skin, balls. Never heard of anyone having a root penis damage. At least that I know.

Out of curiosity, there is a guy here who swears he pumps with an industrial pump. The pressure can go as high as 29 hg according to him. He is fine, he told he grows at 1/4” per month or so. I have pumped with a micropump that can suck 15 lit/min to 25 hg; doing that for several days in a week or two caused a urethral damage which subsequently became infected. It was a fucking bad infection, I’ll tell you.

Out of clarity, I’m not arguing anything here. Just random thoughts. It’s that time of the evening here.

Don’t know if this link was posted before here
pumping vs clamping results