Picture Posting. If you are 18 years of age or older, you may provide a link to a picture hosting site. Pictures which are posting within the body of your writing often are too large to fit the page and they distort the finished product and make it difficult to read. By using a hosting site, you help us to do a better job of helping you to solve your problem. A suggested site is www.imgur.com.
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Glanspro?

July 1 2013 at 1:42 PM
RG  (no login)

 
I'm 33 years old and my foreskin is a but tight. I can pull it back but it's painful. Has anyone heard of glanspro.com?

Thanks!

 
    
AuthorReply

(Login jimsplacetofixthings)
Forum Owner

Yes

July 1 2013, 5:39 PM 

Such a device should work, but it will be quite limited in scope. We recommend using your fingers or a flesh tunnel.

 
    
RG
(no login)

Re: Yes

July 1 2013, 6:38 PM 

Thanks, Jim. How would this device be limited in scope? Should I buy the phimocure flesh rings? I cannot use fingers at least for now because I can only fit in one finger...

Thanks!

 
    

(Login jimsplacetofixthings)
Forum Owner

Its range

July 3 2013, 7:17 AM 

Unless there have been vast improvements recently in the design of this item and another quite like it, it will be useful only in the beginning stages of stretching, not having the ability to expand the skin past a certain limited point. I'd go for the tunnels.

 
    

(Login Paul_B.)

More to the point, how could we not have heard of it?

July 2 2013, 5:17 AM 

It's not as if we are newcomers to this matter - by any means.

The reason we simply do not mention the "Glanspro", or the "Glansie" at all, is that they are crude devices which clearly have very limited application.

You need to read the historic discussion here, which means you need to read a lot of the previous discussion threads here, and I really mean a lot - at least a hundred. Only then can you begin to understand all the nuances of what is involved in "stretching" a tight foreskin. Specifically, it is not stretching as you apply to an inanimate object, though some medical use of stretching is simply a matter using sufficient force to stretch the part in question.

What is meant by stretching as it applies to the foreskin, is a process by which it is stretched little by little over time, and caused to grow to a larger size. Once you comprehend that, you can get a better grip (happy.gif) on the matter.

What is wrong with these devices, is that they apply the tension to very narrow points - two points in the case of the Glansie and three for the lauded Glanspro. While the latter may be a marginal improvement, these devices are really only useful in the case of a genuine "pinhole phimosis" and as soon as the opening is beyond something like ten millimetres diameter, are quite useless - as you will see described in a recent posting here (so - do the reading and find out). Applying pressure at these narrow points when trying to stretch a larger opening is traumatic and consequently, ineffective.

And they are ridiculously cumbersome. The process of stretching is not a mattey of doing it for a minute or so every few days, to make it effective you need to allocate a few sessions every day totalling a good part of an hour - or use a device you can leave in place underneath clothing most of or all day - because what the skin responds to is persistent pressure.

Finally, if you can fit in one finger, you are doing well. You progress to whatever finger is a tight fit for ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. Once you get to a thumb, you can replace it with two little fingers and then the real stretching starts.

However - if you can already retract the foreskin, I think you are wrong and can in fact already fit two little fingers.

 
    
RG
(no login)

Re: More to the point, how could we not have heard of it?

July 2 2013, 12:43 PM 

Thanks for your great reply Paul! Yes, I read this forum for the 5 hours yesterday and created this plan of action:

I'm not a fan of using fingers because I need to do some formal measurements and all...remember the saying "if you can't measure it you can't manage it."

I ordered a few silicon flesh tunnels from ebay with sizes ranging from 10 mm to 30 mm at a cost of $27. I got 1% hydrocortisone cream from the local Jewel Osco for $6. I'll probably begin with the 10 mm ring and wear it for a month or so and clean it 2x daily. I'll most likely create an Excel spreadsheet charting my progress.

I know I'll need to be patient...this process could take 6-8 months! But that's still better than circumcision. Anyways, thank you for this great forum...I'll keep you posted!

Regards,

RG

 
    

(Login Paul_B.)

Fine on the reading - but

July 2 2013, 2:50 PM 

Not sure for what you propose to use the hydrocortisone cream?

If you have been reading here, sufficiently, you would note that hydrocortisone is of negligible assistance in stretching, it specifically does not usefully weaken the skin matrix in the manner that the "potent" steroids can, it may increase susceptibility to Candida - "Thrush" - and cream is the wrong form for pharmacological efficacy. happy.gif

 
    
RG
(no login)

Re: Fine on the reading - but

July 2 2013, 5:26 PM 

Paul - read this article:http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/777539-medication

Physicians officially prescribe betamethasone..which just works faster than hydrocortisone. Basically, steroids potentiate cellular replication in the dermal and epidermal skin layers...hence smooth out the expansion process. So basically, once I pop out the flesh ring, the foreskin will not shrink back to it's original size as quickly as it would without the hydrocortisone cream.

Steroids also help heal minor tears and cuts on the foreskin which may occur secondary to stretching and/or too much manipulation.

RG

 
    

(Login Paul_B.)

I seriously suggest you leave the advice on pharmacological therapeutics to me.

July 3 2013, 6:56 AM 

happy.gif

I looked at the article you cite. I am pretty sure I have examined it before, probably long ago.

One thing that renders the article less than helpful to us here is that it actually offers circumcision (or dorsal slit/ "preputioplasty") as a "remedy" for either phimosis or paraphimosis, even as a "last resort". (It would be more correct to define it as "the lazy way out".)

In any case, please note that that article does not mention hydrocortisone, and it does not do so for a very good reason. The reason is that hydrocortisone is not simply a "slower acting" version of the "potent" betamethasone, but that it is a different class of steroid, in fact a weak steroid. It will take vastly longer to achieve the same effect as the betamethasone and only then because and if you are actually stretching. It is almost certainly, simply not worth it for the reason explained following.

I cannot for the life of me imagine from where you get these ideas about steroids "potentiating cellular replication" or "helping heal minor tears and cuts" - or that it will cause the foreskin to retain its stretched form on removal of the ring.

Steroids in fact do the very opposite - they retard healing and suppress the immune system which is necessary to fight infection. The risk of using them on the foreskin is that it becomes more likely to develop a Candida infestation in the process, especially in association with all the manipulation involved (because stretching does not occur simply with steroid use, you have to actually perform the stretching).

 
    
RG
(no login)

Re: I seriously suggest you leave the advice on pharmacological therapeutics to me.

July 3 2013, 12:19 PM 

Paul - I'll use flesh tunnels in conjunction with the hydrocortisone cream. Anyways, check out this link:

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/dewan/

"Steroid cream is a painless, less complicated and more economical alternative to circumcision for the treatment of phimosis. Wright had a success rate of 80% (89 of 111 boys) using 0.05% betamethasone.34 Kikiros et al. reported an improvement in 33 of 42 boys (78%) with 0.05% betamethasone, and in 18 of 21 boys (86%) with hydrocortisone, but they considered that the betamethasone worked more quickly.3 Another steroid cream, 0.05% clobetasol propionate, has also been used successfully by (70%, 54 boys) by Jørgersen and Svensson"

Regards,

RG

 
    

(Login Paul_B.)

An excellent article but ...

July 3 2013, 3:18 PM 

As so often happens in this area of discussion there are a number of problems with the otherwise praiseworthy discussion. You will note the comprehensive explanation - as I previously indicated - of the actions of steroids and the manner in which they facilitate stretching.

One problem however is demonstrated by the reference to "BXO" where "We concur with the view that BXO does not respond to topical steroid treatment, and that circumcision is indicated." This indicates that the report is "dated" (albeit only seventeen years ago) and that the authors have - or had - limited experience themselves with the use of steroids though they do give a fairly reasonable description of the need to properly and accurately apply the steroid. I could wonder how commonly available the "ultra-potent" Clobetasol which is the "gold standard" for treating LS (the more correct description of "BXO") was back then though it is mentioned in one of the references as being highly successful, clearly contrary to their conclusion.

In the more general sense, the article misses out on the most important aspect; the one on which we spend so much time here! And one must note that it focuses on the treatment of "phimosis" in children rather than adults. It is of note that the photographs in the article appear to be of the younger children and infants, for whom phimosis, whether "physiological" or what they class as "pathological", is an entirely inappropriate term, based on such criteria as "a non-retractable foreskin beyond the age of three years" (Wright's article as cited).

The critical detail is of course - the actual practice of stretching. The problem is that such "trials" as have been cited, are of steroid creams with the emphasis on the cream rather than the stretching. Given that these studies concern children in whom the simple practice of stretching would generally be quite effective in itself, this makes the results quite random; if you are to compare the application of steroid cream with no application of cream, then it should be quite obvious that those using the cream are far more likely to be actually making attempts to stretch than those who are not following such a procedure, and therefore - as demonstrated - that any cream is quite effective. Arguably, my ("favourite") Zinc and Castor Oil cream would also be surprisingly effective - as long as you put it on regularly and stretch. happy.gif

So - pardon me if I am less than impressed by studies purportedly "comparing" hydrocortisone with betamethasone. What matters is primarily the stretching. If there is significant damage to the (fore)skin consistent with "LS" then simple stretching will most likely not be sufficient, and one may in that situation expect that a genuinely potent steroid of which betamethasone is the minimum and clobetasol preferred, preferably in the more effective ointment form, is required.

 
    

(no login)

I have GlansPro

July 10 2013, 5:08 AM 

Hello,

I purchased GlansPro last month when I discovered that it was possible to reverse phimosis with stretching exercises. It was a review video on YouTube that led me to buy it. Only a few days later I found this forum but the order was already paid to my regret.

I started doing the exercises explained in this forum in 6/Jun and I'm still unable to use the GlansPro device because my skin is still too tight. If you have a severe case of phimosis the GlansPro device will be useless.

 
    

(Login Paul_B.)

Actually the opposite.

July 10 2013, 3:14 PM 

The GlansPro is most useful when you have a very tight foreskin.

It must be used with a lubricant to do this.

I very much doubt that a video on YouTube actually showed the insertion process (the attempted humorous one I see certainly doesn't), but it involves pulling the foreskin out into a "funnel" and sliding the triple palps of the GlansPro down that funnel into and through the narrow section.

The GlansPro is narrower than a finger (though I note - by no means as narrow as the original "Glansie"), so you certainly will be able to insert it earlier than you can insert even one finger as the (minimum) basis of the exercises we explain. Given the use of lubricant, simply inserting the closed palps of the device without attempting to open them is in itself the initial stretching exercise.

 
    
Current Topic - Glanspro?
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
Please note - use "Preview" to check what you have written and how it will appear before you "Respond", and because this forum is moderated, you will not then see your submission until the moderator has a chance to confirm it.