JackH said...
40buickcoupe said...
I have all the information given to me by my Dr on all risks. They have been great its just I read when they cut the urethra above and below they have to pull it back to the bladder which is pulling it up into and toward the bladder which shrinks or I should say shortens it. That makes since to me
It's counter-intuitive...because that's not what causes it.
You said you got
"...all the information given to me by my Dr on all risks," so what did your doctor's literature (not "the internet") say about
the shortening?Very good question. I'm thinking that is rarely mentioned, as I think many men- if there was any alternative treatment available with at least reasonable chance of a "cure", so to speak, would think dang hard about
that surgery choice if this was clearly pointed out. If they told you not only do you have a very high risk of some degree of- or even total lifetime- impotence, but whatever you got, you are going to lose some of it, I think that would be a real attention getter. But maybe I'm wrong about
that.
My doctor was very honest with me about
probable life time impotence ( or as he called it, ED, since he could not spare nerves it was virtually certain), though he sort of made lite of it by saying "no big deal, you can just inject, or in the worst case get an implant". But he never mentioned injections that don't work worth a hoot and ache like crazy for 2 hours, possible trips to the ER to deal with injections gone wrong, shrinkage, Peyronie's(curved penis), or a reasonably high risk of loss of pleasure- or even pain- with orgasm. Not a word about
any of that. Since he makes his living removing prostates, I think I understand why he would not emphasize any of that.