Gaining at Higher Angles

Marinera,

Many of those studies I referenced were reporting erect gains, others BPFSL gains, and none were only flaccid gains; and the first two things I referenced were performed by third parties. The third one was conducting by the plastic surgeons, but as I noted appeared very honest, but I can’t be sure.

So I guess the points here are:

Can lig snipping create gains in erect or BPFSL in some situations? Yes, it appears it can.

Has this been repeatable? Yes, with the results of the objective observer falling into a consistent range for over 20 years.

Does it always produce length gains? Absolutely not. Due to complications such as reattachment and fibrosis, length gains can be minimal or actually negative.

Should it be someone’s first option? Hell no! The satisfaction rate is low, and the complication rate is extremely high.

But what is relevant to our discussion is that it has produced length gains in both BPEL and BPFSL in many cases, ONLY through excision of the suspensory ligament.

Also, the first study I posted was a review of the literature, which was essentially what I was trying to do. But some doctors without a stake in the procedure had already done it for me. And they had very strict guidelines for what they would accept as reliable and objective.

It is noteworthy that their overall opinions on the subject were negative as it was met with an unacceptably high rate of complications in many cases and often low patient satisfaction, but they also concluded that length gains in BPFSL or BPEL did happen if no complications were present.

These reported gains can not be entirely attributed to the surgery though, if I recall correctly, each procedure is followed up by a mandatory stretching/hanging regiment. One that many members here have shown could have given the gains (1-4cm) without the risks of the surgery in the first place.

All I’m hinting at is that the lig being cut is not really the only varible that is changed in these examples.

All of the studies I posted looked at length gains at a follow up, but also intraoperatively. The results, where complications did not occur, were consistent between the two measurements. And obviously the intraoperative measurement was taken before any traction was performed.

Also, this traction most times involves hanging very low weights - like below three pounds, or using very light stretchers. They are more of an ADS really. And this traction is only used to keep the ligament from reattaching to the pubic bone.

In some of the newer methods, like in that case study I posted or a couple of the studies reviewed in that first paper they are installing silicone or transplanted adipose tissue between the pubic bone and the penis inside the body to prevent reattachment and no traction is used at all. These newer methods are showing similar, sometimes greater, results.

Roots it will never be enough information. Because of who is performing the procedures even if 10000 operations where performed and some gain was evidenced in each operation marinera will call into doubt the validity of the research based on bias.

His claim was that the severing of the ligament will cause no gains at all. I think you have shown that it will cause some gains even if a minute amount, it still shows he was wrong but he will never admit that. Doesn’t matter how much research you will post.

Maybe so, but I think the discussion is valuable. People can read it and make up their own minds. And I respect Marinera’s opinions, and it is exactly because of his uncompromising practicality.

You are definitely a kindred spirit here at Thunders, and I appreciate your support. But you and I already agree on most things. :)

Read you sources before posting them dude. One is about a silicon buffer implant or something, the other one only spoke of stretched flaccid gains; now tell me: both the patient and surgeon want to find some growth, how that will influence a ‘after’ FSL measurement? Will they measure exactly with the same traction force, pushing in the same way or not into the bone, measuring exactly in the same way? as ‘before? And again, about everything you refer too is pretty much a piece of a seller making propaganda to his own business.

The controlled penis lengthening studies I posted found no proof of erect gains other than those achieved using a stretcher for several hours daily for weeks (0.3”). Probably a control group with no surgery had gained more, actually. It is also explained clearly why the expected erect gains didn’t show up: wrong anatomy suppositions. The idea that cutting the ligs will make your penis straighter is no less than hilarious to me, sorry, you are a cool guy but you know I am a pretty straight-forward kind.

I did read through them in their entirety. The silicone in the case study, as I described to cantlook, was placed over the pubic bone to prevent reattachment, it was not part of the lengthening process. Also as I described, they do the same thing with transplanted adipose tissue.

The literature review examined several studies where different measuring techniques were utilized, but none were flaccid hang. The case study examined erect length increase specifically.

ONLY the third study was not performed by a third party, I posted that when I posted the study though.

Marinera, at this point the number of cumulative patients examined in those studies number in the thousands. To say that gains in length (with the penis perpendicular to the body) are not possible through lig removal and that all of the results are faked seems a little out there.

And you will never offend me by disagreeing, I appreciate your candor, as always. :)

Marinera, I read through the articles you linked to. The first one I could not find full text on, even in the college library. But in the abstract I can tell a few things:

It is not a controlled clinical study.
It is a review of the literature only.
They did not conclude that length gains were impossible, but rather that they were modest on average

The second one I read the literature review, methodology and results sections. These things I can conclude:

It is not a controlled clinical study
It is a mailed out questionnaire to prior patients undergoing penile lengthening surgery
VERY IMPORTANT: it is not peer reviewed and published
It reports around a 1 cm increase in ERECT length among these patients (very near the 1-4 cm normal expected range)
Only 55 patients returned a reply
And here is the big one: 44.8% of the respondents experienced a complication. These respondents (nearly half) were included in the pool for mean average erect gain. The major marker for failure in these procedures is complications like reattachment, infection, and fibrosis reducing, negating, or actually causing a net loss in erect length gain. By including these respondents the pool for calculating mean erect length gain it drives the average down significantly. If you only examine the patients who had no complications (which is all that is important here because we are talking about stretching the suspensory ligaments, not surgery), I would expect the average erect length gain to be even higher than what they reported.

It seems like these two papers actually support a modest increase in penile length (erect as well) only from ligament snipping.

I want to share my thoughts as well. I understand that length gains are made due to the tunica stretching if that is the case, wouldn’t you want the tension on 100% of the tunica instead of 80%? The math is easy 1% of 6 is more than 1% of 4. So stretching while keeping the ligs lose can affect more of the tunica for growth until your ligs become tight at that angle you’re stretching at. at which point you then work on the ligs to loosen then back up.

I see you decided to check the thread out. :)

Your first supposition is exactly what is being debated: can gains come from both ligament elongation and tunica elongation, or only tunica elongation alone. If it is the latter, than yes, you would only want to focus the stretch force on the tunica.

The second part isn’t accurate. Both Marinera and I agree on this: the ligs do not hold the penis within the body (they do somewhat, but they are a vertically aligned structure, not a horizontal one), it is anchored inside the body at the inferior pubic ramus on both sides of the pelvis. So no matter how loose or tight they are they will not effect tunica elongation specifically.

Really? Let’s see. The study from Roos cited here
rootsnatty - Gaining at Higher Angles

is the same on which the analysis linked here
marinera - Gaining at Higher Angles

is based on, and it clearly states that there is no increase in erect length severing the ligs.

The study you link here
rootsnatty - Gaining at Higher Angles
tells us:
“The penile length was calculated from the base of the penis to the tip of the glans while in a stretched condition according to the technique proposed by Levine and Larsen”.

And I want just to remember you that that paper is pretty much just marketing. The sole remaining cited by you doesn’t tell anywhere how length increase was measured and it too can’t be considered without conflict of interestes. None of them refers to increase in erect length that I can see; and, I don’t want to sound condescending, but ‘a case report’ can’t be considered evidence of any kind in this field, it is like saying ‘Guess what I heard happened?’

The sole increase you can have is that caused by the slight change in erection angle, because when pointing down the penis is a bit longer. But at the same angle, the penis has the same length, ligs or not.

That is consistent with the function of the ligs, which is not to tie the penis to the body, but to hold the penis in place. Actually without the ligs holding it in place you could have the penis retracting inside your body when having intercourses, or as said falling down into the scrotum.

Just a quick note to this: the tension will not be shared between the tunica and the ligs, it will be the same in both. Stretching down as opposed to straight out will simply apply the same tension to two structures instead of one. In that respect, downward should always be preferred. What may change is the distribution of the stress in the tunica. If the tension is carried through the ligaments, the part of the tunica that bears the load may be smaller (effectively increasing the stress).
With that in mind, another way progressive lengthening of the ligaments may impact results is by slowly moving the point at which the tension is transferred further back along the tunica. I suspect lots of interesting things happen at this high stress points.

I never said it was ‘a clinical study’, and I find interesting your conviction that review of the literature is meaningless while a ‘clinical study’ is inherently the truth. A ‘clinical study’ can tell you something absurd if the methodology is fucked up. And if the guy who perfom the surgeries is the same doing ‘the clinical study’, the are not reliable at all. That’s what reviews of the literature serves.

I linked the publish abstract of the article with a link, and I think it is clear enough so I’m not going to believe to secret knowledge sources.

Great job the warnings to the ignorant public, Batman.