Clinical Experience

Asian Journal of Andrology (2007) 9, 408–413; doi:10.1111/j.1745-7262.2007.00262.x

Short-term results of incremental penile girth enhancement using liquid injectable silicone: words of praise for a change

Yacov Yacobi1,2, Alexander Tsivian1, Roman Grinberg2 and Oded Kessler1

  1. 1Department of Urologic Surgery, E. Wolfson Medical Center, Holon 58100, Israel
  2. 2Theomim Clinic, Ramat-Gan 52511, Israel

Correspondence: Dr Yacov Yacobi, 14 Hazabar Street, Kiriat-Ono 55410, Israel. Fax: +972-3502-8408. E-mail: dr_yacobi@bezeqint.net

Received 27 August 2006; Accepted 6 November 2006.

Top

Abstract

Aim:

 

To report our experience with penile girth augmentation using liquid injectable silicone.

Methods:

 

Between August 2003 and July 2006, 324 men (mean age 35 years, range 19-65 years) received a series of liquid silicone subcutaneous injections between the penile skin and the corpora cavernosa on the dorsal and lateral aspects of the penile shaft, under local anesthesia. Digital photographs taken pre- and post-procedure (n = 324), and penile contour measurements (n = 30) yielded objective results. Subjective results were derived from patient and partner testimony of satisfaction. Follow-up averaged 20 months (range 1-36 months).

Results:

 

Three hundred and twenty-four procedures were primary augmentations. Most men (61%) were married, 7% were accompanied by their partners, and 93% were circumcised. The mean measured penile circumference was 9.5 cm (7.5-11.5 cm) pretreatment and 12.1 cm (10.3-15.3 cm) post-treatment (mean increase of 27% in circumference and 0.84 cm in diameter). Patient and partner satisfaction was already expressed after the first two treatments. Sexual activity could be resumed after 8 h. Complications (mild bruising) were easily resolved.

Conclusion:

 

Penile girth augmentation using liquid injectable silicone yields very satisfactory short-term results with no immediate or short-term complications.

Keywords:

injectable silicone, penile girth, augmentation, penile contouring

Top

References

  1. Alter GJ. Augmentation phalloplasty. Urol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 887–902. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  2. Hexsel DM, Hexsel CL, Iyengar V. Liquid injectable silicone: history, mechanism of action, indications, technique, and complication. Semin Cutan Med Surg 2003; 22: 107–14. | Article | PubMed |
  3. Wassermann RJ, Greenwald DP. Debilitating silicone granuloma of the penis and scrotum. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35: 505–10. | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
  4. Christ JE, Askew JB Jr. Silicone granuloma of the penis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69: 337–9. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  5. Orentreich DS. Liquid injectable silicone: techniques for soft tissue augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 2000; 27: 596–612.
  6. Naoum C, Dasiou-Plakida D, Pantelidaki K, Dara C, Chrisanthakis D, Perissios A. A histological and immunohistochemical study of medical-grade fluid silicone. Dermatol Surg 1998; 24: 867–70. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  7. Requena C, Izquierdo MJ, Navarro M, Martinez A, Vilata JJ, Botella R, et al. Adverse reactions to injectable aesthetic microimplants. Am J Dermatopathol 2001; 23: 197–202. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  8. Son H, Lee H, Huh JS, Kim SW, Paick JS. Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men. Asian J Androl 2003; 5: 185–9. | PubMed | ISI |
  9. Moon DG, Yoo JW, Bae JH, Han CS, Kim YK, Kim JJ. Sexual function and psychological characteristics of penile paraffinoma. Asian J Androl 2003; 5: 191–4. | PubMed |
  10. Mcheik JN, Bacquey C, Vergnes P, Bondonny JM. Phagocytic reaction in contact with macroplastic: application in pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2000; 35: 1474–7. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  11. Caballero M, Bernal-Sprekelsen M, Calvo C, Farre X, Quinto L, Alos L. Polydimethylsiloxane versus polytetrafluoroethylene for vocal fold medialization: histologic evaluation in a rabbit model. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2003; 67: 666–74. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
  12. Dodat H, Takvorian P, Mure PY, Canterino I, Pouillaude JM. Analysis of the failure of endoscopic treatment of vesico-renal reflux in children using injections of teflon and collagen and the preliminary results of injections of Macroplastic. Prog Urol 1995; 5: 58–68. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  13. Vela D, Montero M, Mendez R, Gomez Tellado M, Pais E. Contraindications for the endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. Cir Pediatr 2000; 13: 141–4. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  14. Bugel H, Pfister C, Sibert L Cappele O, Khalaf A, Grise P. Intraurethral macroplastic injections in the treatment of urinary incontinence after prostatic surgery. Prog Urol 1999; 9: 1068–76. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  15. Steyaert H, Gebran S, Moscovici J, Juskiewenski S. Decisional criteria in the management of vesico-ureteral reflux in children with congenital neurogenic bladder. Prog Urol 1996; 6: 76–80. | PubMed | ChemPort |
  16. Lightner DJ. Review of the available urethral bulking agents. Curr Opin Urol 2002; 12: 333–8. | Article | PubMed |
  17. Wallace WD, Balkin SW, Kaplan L, Nelson S. The histologic host response to liquid silicone injections for prevention of pressure-related ulcers of the foot: a 38-year study. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2004; 94: 550–7. | PubMed |
  18. American Academy of Dermatology: Soft tissue augmentation task force report on liquid injectable silicone. December 1993.
  19. Rapaport M. Silicone injections revisited. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28: 594–5. | Article | PubMed |
  20. Kulber DA, Mackenzie D, Steiner JH, Glassman H, Hopp D, Hiatt JR, et al. Monitoring the axilla in patients with silicone gel implants. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35: 580–4. | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |

Extra navigation

.

natureproducts


ADVERTISEMENT