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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Penile size in adult men—recommendations for clinical and research measurements

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 153–158 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Data regarding the size of the adult penis is of great importance to both clinicians and researchers. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the preferred method for the evaluation of penile size. Various and conflicting methods are reported in the literature. We review the data on measurement methods of the flaccid, stretched, and erected penis with the aim of constructing a recommendation for best practice. A systematic search for articles on penile length and girth measurement techniques was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochran Library. Only peer-reviewed articles published in English before August 2018 were reviewed. All authors evaluated the methods and results sections presented in each publication. Relevant, demonstrative publications are reported in this review. We did not find definitive evidence favoring one measuring method over the other. Therefore, we advocate the use of our recommendations for penile size measurement in future publications.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veale D, Miles S, Read J, Troglia A, Carmona L, Fiorito C, et al. Penile dysmorphic disorder: development of a Screening Scale. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:2311–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shah J, Christopher N. Can shoe size predict penile length? BJU Int. 2002;90:586–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi IH, Kim KH, Jung H, Yoon SJ, Kim SW, Kim TB. Second to fourth digit ratio: a predictor of adult penile length. Asian J Androl. 2011;13:710–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA. Does size matter? Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychol Men Masc. 2006;7:129–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dillon BE, Chama NB, Honig SC. Penile size and penile enlargement surgery: a review. Int J Impot Res. 2008;20:519–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kamel I, Gadalla A, Ghanem H, Oraby M. Comparing penile measurements in normal and erectile dysfunction subjects. J Sex Med. 2009;6:2305–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vasconcelos JS, Figueiredo RT, Nascimento FLB, Damião R, da Silva EA. The natural history of penile length after radical prostatectomy: a long-term prospective study. Urology. 2012;80:1293–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berookhim BM, Nelson CJ, Kunzel B, Mulhall JP, Narus JB. Prospective analysis of penile length changes after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2014;113:E131–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan S, Somani B, Lam W, Donat R. Establishing a reference range for penile length in Caucasian British men: a prospective study of 609 men. BJU Int. 2012;109:740–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen XB, Li RX, Yang HN, Dai JC. A comprehensive, prospective study of penile dimensions in Chinese men of multiple ethnicities. Int J Impot Res. 2014;26:172–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schneider T, Sperling H, Lümmen G, Syllwasschy J, Rübben H. Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men. Urology. 2001;57:314–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA. Erect penile length and circumference dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the United States. J Sex Med. 2014;11:93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kwon YS, Farber N, Yu JW, Rhee K, Han C, Ney P, et al. Longitudinal recovery patterns of penile length and the underexplored benefit of long-term phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor use after radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2018;18:37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gaither TW, Awad MA, Osterberg EC, Murphy GP, Allen IE, Chang A, et al. The natural history of erectile dysfunction after prostatic radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1071–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen KK, Chou YH, Chang LS, Chen MT. Sonographic measurement of penile erectile volume. J Clin Ultrasound. 1992;20:247–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Awwad Z, Abu-Hijleh M, Basri S, Shegam N, Murshidi M, Ajlouni K. Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 2005;17:191–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Harding R, Golombok SE. Test-retest reliability of the measurement of penile dimensions in a sample of gay men. Arch Sex Behav. 2002;31:351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Briganti A, Fabbri F, Salonia A, Gallina A, Chun FK-H, Dehò F, et al. Preserved postoperative penile size correlates well with maintained erectile function after bilateral nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:702–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafè M, Di Loro F, Biscioni S, Masieri L. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males. Eur Urol. 2001;39:183–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yafi FA, Alzweri L, McCaslin IR, Libby RP, Sangkum P, Sikka SC, et al. Grower or shower? Predictors of change in penile length from the flaccid to erect state. Int J Impot Res. 2018;30:287–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shirai M, Nakamura M, Ishii N, Mitsukawa S, Sawai Y. Determination of intrapenial blood volume using 99mTc-labeled autologous red blood cells. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1976;120:377–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Nelson RP, Lue TF. Determination of erectile penile volume by ultrasonography. J Urol. 1989;141:1123–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Margolin EJ, Mlynarczyk CM, Mulhall JP, Stember DS, Stahl PJ. Three-dimensional photography for quantitative assessment of penile volume-loss deformities in Peyronie’s disease. J Sex Med. 2017;14:829–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hricak H, Marotti M, Gilbert TJ, Lue TF, Wetzel LH, McAninch JW, et al. Normal penile anatomy and abnormal penile conditions: evaluation with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;169:683–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mulhall JP, Levine LA, Junemann KP. Erection hardness: a unifying factor for defining response in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 2006;68:17–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Angelie Singh, M.D., M.P.H., M.Sc. is thanked for editorial and linguistic assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Alexander Greenstein, Snir Dekalo & Juza Chen

  2. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Alexander Greenstein, Snir Dekalo & Juza Chen

Authors
  1. Alexander Greenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Snir Dekalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juza Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juza Chen.

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

Greenstein, A., Dekalo, S. & Chen, J. Penile size in adult men—recommendations for clinical and research measurements. Int J Impot Res 32, 153–158 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0157-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0157-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links