Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Penile dimensions: What are surgeons measuring?

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 31, pages 444–450 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Penile dimensions and related dissatisfaction, may have significant impact upon patients whom undergo andrological surgeries. Whilst penile dimension assessment is performed as part of the andrological evaluation, little is known regarding the surgeons’ opinions nor contemporary practices. This study was designed to gain further insights into the opinions and practices of clinicians regarding penile measurement and is the first paper in the literature of its kind. The study was performed by inviting clinicians at andrological/urological conferences to participate in a voluntary 10 point survey concerning penile dimensions. Of 126 responses recorded, 56% (71/126) were andrologists. Of the responders, 45% (56/122) did not routinely perform penile measurement prior to treatment nor were they aware of the standardised method (93/123). The majority 64%(81/126) would measure the penile length from the pubic bone to the tip (79/123) with the penis in a stretched position (99/125). A goniometer was the most common way of assessing penile curvature (37/73) and the length would be measured mostly on the convex side (46/119). Responders felt that, from the patients perspective, a combination of length, girth and shape (51/123), or length only (50/123), were the more important aspects of penile dimensions. As responders were recruited based on their interest in andrological aspects of urology, it may not be representative of the general urological community. In conclusion, attitudes and methods of penile measurement are quite varied amongst surgeons, thus further discussion and investigation of this aspect of andrological care ought to occur.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, Faraday MM, Hakim LS, Heidelbaugh JJ, et al. Peyronie's Disease: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2015;194:745–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Chung E, Ralph D, Kagioglu A, Garaffa G, Shamsodini A, Bivalacqua T, et al. Evidence-based management guidelines on Peyronie's disease. J Sex Med. 2016;13:905–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith JF, Walsh TJ, Conti SL, Turek P, Lue T. Risk factors for emotional and relationship problems in Peyronie's disease. J Sex Med. 2008;5:2179–84.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen R, Catania J, Lue T, Althof S, Henne J, Hellstrom W, et al. Impact of Peyronie's disease on sexual and psychosocial functioning: qualitative findings in patients and controls. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1977–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gelbard MK, Dorey F, James K. The natural history of Peyronie's disease. J Urol. 1990;144:1376–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bella AJ, Perelman MA, Brant WO, Lue TF. Peyronie's disease (CME). J Sex Med. 2007;4:1527–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Xie D, Nicholas M, Gheiler V, Perito D, Siano L, Kislinger I, et al. A prospective evaluation of penile measures and glans penis sensory changes after penile prosthetic surgery. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:529–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Savoie M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. A prospective study measuring penile length in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2003;169:1462–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Amer T, Wilson R, Chlosta P, AlBuheissi S, Qazi H, Fraser M, et al. Penile fracture: a meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2016;96:315–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Haliloglu A, Baltaci S, Yaman O. Penile length changes in men treated with androgen suppression plus radiation therapy for local or locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol. 2007;177:128–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yu C, Hequn C, Longfei L, Minfeng C, Zhi C, Feng Z, et al. Sexual function after partial penectomy: a prospectively study from China. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21862.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Greenfield JM, Lucas S, Levine LA. Factors affecting the loss of length associated with tunica albuginea plication for correction of penile curvature. J Urol. 2006;175:238–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Habous M, Muir G, Soliman T, Farag M, Williamson B, Binsaleh S, et al. Outcomes of variation in technique and variation in accuracy of measurement in penile length measurement. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:21–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Herbenick D, Schick V, Reece M, Sanders SA, Fortenberry JD. The development and validation of the Male Genital Self-Image Scale: results from a nationally representative probability sample of men in the United States. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1516–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaither TW, Allen IE, Osterberg EC, Alwal A, Harris CR, Breyer BN. Characterization of genital dissatisfaction in a national sample of U.S. Men. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:2123–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenman R. Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC Women’s Health. 2001;1:1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Davoudzadeh EP, Davoudzadeh NP, Margolin E, Stahl PJ, Stember DS. Penile length: measurement technique and applications. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:261–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Francken AB, van de Wiel HB, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz WC. What importance do women attribute to the size of the penis? Eur Urol. 2002;42:426–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shamloul R. Treatment of men complaining of short penis. Urology. 2005;65:1183–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mondaini N, Ponchietti R, Gontero P, Muir GH, Natali A, Caldarera E, et al. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures. Int J Impot Res. 2002;14:283–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brody S, Costa RM. Satisfaction (sexual, life, relationship, and mental health) is associated directly with penile-vaginal intercourse, but inversely with other sexual behavior frequencies. J Sex Med. 2009;6:1947–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hussein AA, Alwaal A, Lue TF. All about Peyronie's disease. Asian J Urol. 2015;2:70–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ralph DJ, al-Akraa M, Pryor JP. The Nesbit operation for Peyronie's disease: 16-year experience. J Urol. 1995;154:1362–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adeniyi AA, Goorney SR, Pryor JP, Ralph DJ. The Lue procedure: an analysis of the outcome in Peyronie's disease. BJU Int. 2002;89:404–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pryor JP, Fitzpatrick JM. A new approach to the correction of the penile deformity in Peyronie's disease. J Urol. 1979;122:622–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Savoca G, Trombetta C, Ciampalini S, De Stefani S, Buttazzi L, Belgrano E. Long-term results with Nesbit's procedure as treatment of Peyronie's disease. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:289–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hatzimouratidis K, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Moncada I, Salonia A, et al. EAU guidelines on penile curvature. Eur Urol. 2012;62:543–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang R, Howard GE, Hoang A, Yuan JH, Lin HC, Dai YT. Prospective and long-term evaluation of erect penile length obtained with inflatable penile prosthesis to that induced by intracavernosal injection. Asian J Androl. 2009;11:411–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Frey A, Sonksen J, Jakobsen H, Fode M. Prevalence and predicting factors for commonly neglected sexual side effects to radical prostatectomies: results from a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. J Sex Med. 2014;11:2318–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Frey AU, Sonksen J, Fode M. Neglected side effects after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. J Sex Med. 2014;11:374–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Salonia A, Adaikan G, Buvat J, Carrier S, El-Meliegy A, Hatzimouratidis K, et al. Sexual rehabilitation after treatment for prostate cancer-part 2: recommendations from the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med. 2017;14:297–315.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Frey A, Pedersen C, Lindberg H, Bisbjerg R, Sonksen J, Fode M. Prevalence and predicting factors for commonly neglected sexual side effects to external-beam radiation therapy for prostate cancer. J Sex Med. 2017;14:558–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park KK, Lee SH, Chung BH. The effects of long-term androgen deprivation therapy on penile length in patients with prostate cancer: a single-center, prospective, open-label, observational study. J Sex Med. 2011;8:3214–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Birrer RB, Robinson T, Rao S, Leber M. Self-mutilation: three cases and a review of the literature. J Emerg Med. 1993;11:27–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee PA, Mazur T, Danish R, Amrhein J, Blizzard RM, Money J, et al. Micropenis. I. Criteria, etiologies and classification. Johns Hopkins Med J. 1980;146:156–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schover LR, von Eschenbach AC, Smith DB, Gonzalez J. Sexual rehabilitation of urologic cancer patients: a practical approach. CA Cancer J Clin. 1984;34:66–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Witty K, Branney P, Evans J, Bullen K, White A, Eardley I. The impact of surgical treatment for penile cancer—patients' perspectives. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17:661–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan GW. Malpractice risks for urologists. Urology. 1998;51:183–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Authority NL. Annual report and accounts 2017/2018. United Kingdom: NHS Resolution; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Habous M, Muir G, Tealab A, Williamson B, Elkhouly M, Elhadek W, et al. Analysis of the interobserver variability in penile length assessment. J Sex Med. 2015;12:2031–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. J Urol. 1996;156:995–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sengezer M, Ozturk S, Deveci M. Accurate method for determining functional penile length in Turkish young men. Ann Plast Surg. 2002;48:381–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Promodu K, Shanmughadas KV, Bhat S, Nair KR. Penile length and circumference: an Indian study. Int J Impot Res. 2007;19:558–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Veale D, Miles S, Bramley S, Muir G, Hodsoll J. Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men. BJU Int. 2015;115:978–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chen J, Gefen A, Greenstein A, Matzkin H, Elad D. Predicting penile size during erection. Int J Impot Res. 2000;12:328–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Aslan Y, Atan A, Omur Aydin A, Nalcacioglu V, Tuncel A, Kadioglu A. Penile length and somatometric parameters: a study in healthy young Turkish men. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:339–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bacal V, Rumohr J, Sturm R, Lipshultz LI, Schumacher M, Grober ED. Correlation of degree of penile curvature between patient estimates and objective measures among men with Peyronie's disease. J Sex Med. 2009;6:862–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Brant WO, Bella AJ, Lue TF. 16-Dot procedure for penile curvature. J Sex Med. 2007;4:277–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ohebshalom M, Mulhall J, Guhring P, Parker M. Measurement of penile curvature in Peyronie's disease patients: comparison of three methods. J Sex Med. 2007;4:199–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London Hospitals, London, UK

    Gideon A. Blecher, Josip Vukina & David J. Ralph

  2. St Peter’s Andrology, London, UK

    David J. Ralph

Authors
  1. Gideon A. Blecher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josip Vukina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David J. Ralph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GAB: 1, 2, 3, 4, JV: 1, 2, DJR: 3, 4.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gideon A. Blecher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blecher, G.A., Vukina, J. & Ralph, D.J. Penile dimensions: What are surgeons measuring?. Int J Impot Res 31, 444–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0135-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0135-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links