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.

Penile girth enhancement procedures for aesthetic purposes

Abstract

The present study aimed to describe and critically discuss the current evidence regarding the penile girth enhancement procedures for aesthetic purposes. We designed a narrative review of the literature. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE database was performed. Original articles in English-language, published until March 2021, were selected. A total of 29 studies were included (3 reporting non-invasive approaches, 11 injection therapies, and 15 surgical procedures). The vast majority of articles (26, 89.7%) were not randomized controlled trials, with overall low quality and limited level of evidence. Only 1 (33.3%) paper regarding non-invasive approaches reported a minimal (+0.03 cm) but a significant increase of penile girth (p = 0.034). A low rate (11.2–14.4%) of mild, temporary adverse events and poor-to-moderate patient satisfaction were found. Eight (72.7%) articles concerning injection therapies showed a significant increase in penile girth (p < 0.05). A low rate of mild complications, generally at the injection site, and a high patient satisfaction rate (75–100%) were highlighted. Nine (60%) papers on surgical treatments found a significant increase in penile girth (p < 0.05), while the other 6 (40%) studies reported a generic improvement in penile circumference. Skin necrosis or ulcers, wound infections, or need for reoperation were reported in 8 (53.3%) studies. A high patient satisfaction rate (60–100%) was reported. Our review highlighted the overall positive results of injection procedures, the poor outcomes associated with non-invasive techniques, and the good efficacy and satisfaction with a non-negligible risk of complications in patients undergoing surgical treatments. However, the adverse events are probably largely under-reported and these procedures should still be considered under investigation due to the limited evidence available and the lack of guidelines.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Hehemann MC, Towe M, Huynh LM, El-Khatib FM, Yafi FA. Penile girth enlargement strategies: what’s the evidence? Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:535–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Marra G, Drury A, Tran L, Veale D, Muir GH. Systematic review of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in normal men complaining of small penis size. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8:158–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Vyas KS, Abu-Ghname A, Banuelos J, Morrison SD, Manrique O. Aesthetic augmentation phalloplasty: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146:995–1006.

  4. 4.

    Romero-Otero J, Manfredi C, Ralph D, Osmonov D, Verze P, Castiglione F, et al. Non-invasive and surgical penile enhancement interventions for aesthetic or therapeutic purposes: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2021;127:269–291.

  5. 5.

    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 

  6. 6.

    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 

  7. 7.

    Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, et al. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. 2011. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

  8. 8.

    Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Robertson J, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Metaanalyses (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies. Ottawa, ON: Hospital Research Institute; 2013.

  9. 9.

    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Gontero P, Di Marco M, Giubilei G, Bartoletti R, Pappagallo G, Tizzani A, et al. A pilot phase-II prospective study to test the “efficacy” and tolerability of a penile-extender device in the treatment of “short penis.”. BJU Int. 2009;103:793–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Nikoobakht M, Shahnazari A, Rezaeidanesh M, Mehrsai A, Pourmand G. Effect of penile-extender device in increasing penile size in men with shortened penis: preliminary results. J Sex Med. 2011;8:3188–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Nowroozi MR, Amini E, Ayati M, Jamshidian H, Radkhah K, Amini S. Applying extender devices in patients with penile dysmorphophobia: assessment of tolerability, efficacy, and impact on erectile function. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1242–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Yacobi Y, Tsivian A, Grinberg R, Kessler O. Short-term results of incremental penile girth enhancement using liquid injectable silicone: words of praise for a change. Asian J Androl. 2007;9:408–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kwak TIL, Oh M, Kim JJ, Moon DG. The effects of penile girth enhancement using injectable hyaluronic acid gel, a filler. J Sex Med. 2011;8:3407–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Quan Y, Gao Z-R, Dai X, Kuang L, Zhang M, Li Q, et al. Complications and management of penile augmentation with hyaluronic acid injection. Asian J Androl. 2021;23:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kang DH, Chung JH, Kim YJ, Lee HN, Cho SH, Chang TH, et al. Efficacy and safety of penile girth enhancement by autologous fat injection for patients with thin penises. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:813–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kim MT, Ko K, Lee WK, Kim SC, Yang DY. Long-term safety and longevity of a mixture of polymethyl methacrylate and cross-linked dextran (Lipen-10®) after penile augmentation: extension study from six to 18 months of follow-up. World J Mens Health. 2015;33:202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Casavantes L, Lemperle G, Morales P. Penile girth enhancement with polymethylmethacrylate-based soft tissue fillers. J Sex Med. 2016;13:1414–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, Moon DG, Kim JW, Lee WK. Efficacy and safety of a newly developed polylactic acid microsphere as an injectable bulking agent for penile augmentation: 18-months follow-up. Int J Impot Res. 2017;29:136–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sharp G, Oates J. Nonsurgical medical penile girth augmentation: a retrospective study of psychological and psychosexual outcomes. Aesthetic Surg J. 2019;39:306–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, Lee WK. A comparison of the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid and polylactic acid filler injection in penile augmentation: a multicenter, patient/evaluator-blinded, randomized trial. J Sex Med. 2019;16:577–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Yang DY, Jeong HC, Ahn ST, Bae WJ, Moon DG, Kim SW, et al. A comparison between hyaluronic acid and polylactic acid filler injections for temporary penile augmentation in patients with small penis syndrome: a multicenter, patient/evaluator-blind, comparative, randomized trial. J Sex Med. 2020;17:133–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yang DY, Jeong HC, Ko K, Lee SH, Lee YG, Lee WK. Comparison of clinical outcomes between hyaluronic and polylactic acid filler injections for penile augmentation in men reporting a small penis: a multicenter, patient-blinded/evaluator-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized comparative trial with 18 months. J Clin Med. 2020;9:1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Perovic SV, Byun JS, Scheplev P, Djordjevic ML, Kim JH, Bubanj T. New perspectives of penile enhancement surgery: tissue engineering with biodegradable scaffolds. Eur Urol. 2006;49:139–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Panfilov DE. Augmentative phalloplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2006;30:183–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Elist JJ, Valenzuela R, Hillelsohn J, Feng T, Hosseini A. A single-surgeon retrospective and preliminary evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the penuma silicone sleeve implant for elective cosmetic correction of the flaccid penis. J Sex Med. 2018;15:1216–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Littara A, Melone R, Morales-Medina JC, Iannitti T, Palmieri B. Cosmetic penile enhancement surgery: a 3-year single-centre retrospective clinical evaluation of 355 cases. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Xu T, Zhang G, Bai W, Li Q, Yang A, Lin Q, et al. Complications and management of penile girth enhancement with acellular dermal matrix. J Sex Med. 2019;16:2011–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Zhang H, Jin C, Zhang P, Wu Y, Zhang M, Bai W, et al. Human acellular dermal matrix augmentation phalloplasty surgery. Plast Surg. 2020;28:161–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Pagano C, Faenza M, Guastafierro A, Manfellotto V, Grella V, Cosenza A, et al. Circumferential dissection of deep fascia as ancillary technique in circumcision: is it possible to correct phimosis increasing penis size? BMC Urol. 2021;21:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Bin Y, Xiao-Rong L, Qing-Qi H, Ri-Sheng Q, Chen-Yang J. A comparative study on two kinds of surgical procedures of penile corpora cavernosa augmentation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2009;62:357–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Jin Z, Wu YG, Yuan YM, Peng J, Gong YQ, Li GY, et al. Tissue engineering penoplasty with biodegradable scaffold Maxpol-T cografted autologous fibroblasts for small penis syndrome. J Androl. 2011;32:491–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Alei G, Letizia P, Ricottilli F, Simone P, Alei L, Massoni F, et al. Original technique for penile girth augmentation through porcine dermal acellular grafts: results in a 69-patient series. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1945–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tealab AA, Maarouf AM, Habous M, Ralph DJ, Abohashem S. The use of an acellular collagen matrix in penile augmentation: a pilot study in Saudi Arabia. Arab J Urol. 2013;11:169–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mertziotis N, Kozyrakis D, Bogris E. Is V-Y plasty necessary for penile lengthening? Girth enhancement and increased length solely through circumcision: Description of a novel technique. Asian J Androl. 2013;15:819–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Shaeer O. Girth augmentation of the penis using flaps “shaeer’s augmentation phalloplasty”: The superficial circumflex iliac flap. J Sex Med. 2014;11:1856–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Xu L, Zhao M, Chen W, Li Y, Yang Z, Ma N, et al. Augmentation phalloplasty with autologous dermal fat graft in the treatment of “small penis. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77:S60–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang GX, Weng M, Wang MD, Bai WJ. Autologous dermal graft combined with a modified degloving procedure for penile augmentation in young adults: a preliminary study. Andrology. 2016;4:927–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    American Urological Association (AUA). Penile augmentation surgery. 2018. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/guidelines/penile-augmentation-surgery

  40. 40.

    International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM). Penis enlargement surgery: men should know about complications. 2019. https://www.issm.info/news/sex-health-headlines/penis-enlargement-surgery-men-should-know-about-complications/

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

CM: bibliographic search, data extraction, and drafting; JRO: elaboration of the methodology and supervision; RD: scientific review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Celeste Manfredi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manfredi, C., Romero Otero, J. & Djinovic, R. Penile girth enhancement procedures for aesthetic purposes. Int J Impot Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00459-y

Download citation

Search

Quick links