Thunder's Place

The big penis and mens' sexual health source, increasing penis size around the world.

Clinical Study on Penis Extender - Italy

Originally Posted by irishjim
This is a significant development - a rare scientific foray into the world of PE. I think ‘ticktickticker’ is a medical student; perhaps he could get access to the full article and reveal all to the rest of us.

I am a MD, as anybody else I can get access to the complete study but, just as anybody else - I would have to pay.

Gontero has written a few more papers regarding the andropenis extender, I am wondering whether he is a really independent researcher. Anyhow, the subject (PE) finds it’s way into the medical community (check my recent thread “PE and the medical community” if your are interested.

Later - ttt

Originally Posted by androNYC
But then I wonder if it is actually the AndroPenis study being cited to?

As you can see, it’s the same research group reported here Tossed Salad - PE and the Medical Community .
I replied to that post (translating the Italian) in the same topic, theleviathan - PE and the Medical Community .

Originally Posted by androNYC
Note the disparity between the simple flaccid and stretched flaccid gains— underscoring our consensus that PE tends to make growers into showers.

I’m not convinced of this consensus.
I think that ADS - not PE in general - tends to emphasize flaccid length: keeping the penis stretched for many hours a day (I use the vadADS waist wrapped, and sometimes I wear it for 14 hours a day, mostly because I forget I’m wearing it) of course can turn a grower into a shower. With ADS a longer EL seems to be just a consequence of a bigger FL, while girth is almost unaffected.

Jelqinq, in my experience, affects much more directly EL; the stronger stress it applies to the penis produce far faster results upon EL and girth.

Originally Posted by ticktickticker
Gontero has written a few more papers regarding the andropenis extender, I am wondering whether he is a really independent researcher

He should be a university professor, probably just specialized in this research field. Not a stupid idea, considering the interest around PE, the number of tools to support it and so far the general (inexplicable) lack of scientific interest.

Originally Posted by dick117
One factor you guys are leaving out. This study was done in Turin, Italy. Maybe the shroud is helping the dicks grow over there.

Haha. I noticed this also when reading the article.

Theleviathan: I’ve had great newbie BPEL gains in a month (.5”) and I’ve noticed my girth has gotten substantially bigger. I’ll report that number soon enough, but if I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to make judgement.

Starting: 5.9" BPEL x 4.0" EG

Currently: 6.5" BPEL x ? EG (saving measurement for 1" BPEL gain milestone!)

Goals: 8"x6" (of course)

If this is still relevant in anyone’s mind, I shoud be able to access it through University database access. I cannot reproduce it (and get fired), but am happy to give it a summary here, maybe requested specifics as well.

Progress Thread - I assure you, I'm growing.

I’d be curious to know if there is a strict correlation between total time of use of the extender and gains, and age and gains as well. Another thing: who and how made before/after measurements? Could you check these and summarize, lmorley?

Marinera, you’re in Italy? Can you just call the guy? (only half joking!)

I don’t have the phone number, java. :)

He’s in Turin and we got his name, right?

I bet after publishing PE studies though, he’s got his number unlisted. ;)

Originally Posted by lmorleytx

If this is still relevant in anyone’s mind, I shoud be able to access it through University database access. I cannot reproduce it (and get fired), but am happy to give it a summary here, maybe requested specifics as well.

If you could do that we would all appreciate it very much.

Ok, the full-length article is about 3 pages long. If my access was not traceable, I would just post the article. I am happy to provide as detailed information as possible. The article is generally less-than-inspiring, both in method and result. As I writ this, I am disappointed and it does affect my writing; I apologize for an omissions.

This should be prefaced by the understanding that this research is meant to examine alternatives to surgery for men afflicted with “small penis.”

The study looks at both the psychological and physical impacts of penis perception and the current needs/demands for enlargement surgeries. The introduction acknowledges the DANGERS of surgery and suggests the risks associated call for less-invasive attempts at enlargement prior to a scalpel.
This tests PE using the Andro-Penis device 4-6 hours daily for a period of twelve months. It very much seems as though this study is performed as a response to the Andromedical study; length gains are similar, no girth gains.

The procedure is as follows:

(1) Patients are filtered through given criteria:
“Patients complaining of ‘small penis’ and highly motivated to receive effective treatment were considered eligible for the study. Patients seeking exclusively an augmentation of circumference were excluded. For study entry, psychosexual counselling was required to select those for whom the treatment was deemed beneficial from a psychological perspective. A history of major psychiatric disorder, anatomical penile deformity or reduced manual dexterity that might prevent the correct use of the device were exclusion criteria. Penile shortening after corporoplasty for curvature of the shaft was an inclusion criterion, provided ≥ 6 months had elapsed since surgery, with no residual curvature. A hypoplastic penis was defined as any flaccid and stretched length of ≤4 and 7 cm, respectively, the lower threshold of the normal reference value [3]. Any size above these led to the definition of penile dysmorphophobia, a condition where a patient with a normal-sized penis is dissatisfied with its dimensions in the flaccid and/or erect state [1].” (the numbering is the ordered citations)
Thirty (30) patients were referred, 21 met the criteria listed above, and only 15 patients completed the study (n=21).

(2) Patients answered a short questionnaire meant to gauge perceptions and size, based on the International Index of EF.

(3) Patients are given AndroPenis devices to be worn daily, 4-6 hours, for 6 months. The study assumes patients will follow Andro-Penis usage directions because they are so highly motivated by the effects of their condition.
“Of 30 patients referred with a complaint of ‘short penis’ between March 2005 and April 2006, 21 were eligible and entered the study. Reasons for exclusion from the protocol were refusal of the patient to comply with the proposed treatment (five) and ineligibility resulting during psychosexual counseling (four). The baseline characteristics of the sample for age, aetiology of the disease, EF domain of the IIEF and penile measurements are listed in Table 1. Only one patient could be categorized as having a hypoplastic penis. None of the patients scoring abnormal IIEF EF domain values (12/21) agreed to undergo specific assessments, as they related their sexual dysfunction to the inadequate penile size. Four patients discontinued treatment, three at 3 months (one for achieving satisfactory results, one for lack of efficacy and one for inability to comply with the protocol), and one at 1 month for side-effects (pain and penile bruising). One patient did not attend the visit after 6 months and was lost to follow up. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, but only the 16 completing the 6-month treatment period were evaluable for the primary endpoint. The median time of daily use of the device was 5 h at 1 month, 5 h at 3 months and 4 h at 6 months, respectively (chi-square, P=0.104).”

(4) Researchers continue to monitor patients’ sizes for six months after the completion of the experiment to report on the permanence of the effects.

This is disappointing, but here goes:
- No literature review
—-> what have others written about the same problem?
—-> why would a patient need a device (as opposed to manual stretches, jelq, etc)?
—-> specific characteristics that make this device more effective than others
- No theory
—-> There is almost no discussion of the “how’s” and “why’s”
—-> There is no discussion of physiological skin/Ligs/CC - nada!
- Approximately one-third did not complete the six-month program

Please note that my commentary on this study is NEGATIVE because this type of “science” is extremely weak due to issues of specificity. The authors do not address PE, they address the AndroPenis device. That being said, GAINS were made by the subjects. That is a GOOD thing because it reaffirms the efficacy of PE. The BAD thing is that most people reading this post experienced the same (or better) gains in the same time-frame through the “Newbie Routine.” So, score one for PE at Team Thunder’s, but don’t go buy an Andro-whatever in response to this study.

Originally Posted by marinera
I’d be curious to know if there is a strict correlation between total time of use of the extender and gains, and age and gains as well. Another thing: who and how made before/after measurements? Could you check these and summarize, lmorley?

Marinera: I hope the attachment answers this. If not, let me know what you are looking for.

Disclaimer: I am not a physician, nor a medical researcher. I am a post-doc researcher at a major state University in the USA. Based on regular methodological rigor, this study produces no meaningful results relating to the use of the AndroPenis device. This is terribly disappointing from the perspective of an academician. Academia (aka.”Intelligentsia”) can do better than this. I am fairly certain that 15-30 people on this forum could give me their annual gains (broken down quarterly), and the results would be more impressive at the mean.

To their credit, the authors are NOT being deceptive. They clearly indicate the number of patients (n), the type of study, and the level of evidence. It would not have been published unless these criteria had been met. It may very well be that physicians accept this type of evidence when they are TREATING THEIR PATIENTS’ PENISES.

I really do think that this article was submitted so advertisements could claim scientific validity. Any results taken from this study CANNOT be understood to reflect the general population, the population of Europe, Italy, or even Turin due to the sample size. Administrating a REAL study costs REAL money. The sample size would have to range in the thousands, random sample (amap), and employ varied techniques, control groups, etc. Meaningful results could be taken from these types of methods, but the cost of doing so is ridiculous.

Lastly, the “references” are really weak for what should be expected. Scholars who pour their life’s work into research are well-read on the subject. This study cites 16 references, scant to say the least.
Here is how the peer-reviewed racquet works: (1) You send a manuscript to a journal, (2) the journal does a quick perusal, and sends it to ~2-3 “blind reviewers” (these are other experts of the same field); (3) the blind reviewer reads and criticizes the methods/merits of the work; (4) the blind reviewer sends back a “yay” or “nay,” normally offering criticisms, suggested revisions;

at this point, if all of the reviewers agree to the validity of the study, it is published. However, if reviewers levy significant criticisms,

(5) the journal sends the manuscript back to the original author, (6) changes are addressed and continue back to step 1.
Generally, the peer-review method DOES keep researchers honest.

Attached Images
Gontero et al_Table 2.JPG
(18.2 KB, 145 views)

Progress Thread - I assure you, I'm growing.

Not really, but it’s not your fault, lmorley. Thanks for your time. :up:

Thanks Imorleytx for the time and effort you have put into this.

I would guess that most who have not done any previous PE would get newbie gains from using an extender. Therefore, any documented gains may or maynot be replicable by a PEer who has passed the newbie stage.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:28 AM.