Giancarlo Marra1, Andrew Drury2, Lisa Tran3, David Veale4, Gordon H Muir5. 1. Department of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital and University of Turin, Turin, Italy; Department of Urology, King's College Hospital and King's College London, London, UK. 2. South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 4. The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK; South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Department of Urology, King's College Hospital and King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: gordonhmuir@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence on penile enhancement interventions is lacking. Nonetheless, many non-evidence-based solutions are readily available. AIM: To investigate enhancement and nonenhancement interventions in men without penile abnormalities seeking to increase penis size. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with no time restrictions adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies with fewer than 10 cases or including men with organic penile pathologies or previous penile surgeries were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: When available, treatment efficacy was evaluated based on patient satisfaction, penile size increase, and complications. RESULTS: We included 17 studies, assessing a total of 21 interventions in 1,192 men screened, with 773 followed up after nonsurgical (n = 248) or surgical (n = 525) treatment. The quality of the studies was poor in terms of methodology for patient selection and outcomes assessment. The vast majority of series reported normal penile size. Among nonsurgical treatments, extenders increased flaccid length (but by <2 cm), injectables increased girth but were associated with a high complication rate, and vacuum devices did not increase size. Surgical interventions included suspensory ligament incision (the most used method; n = 12), tissue grafting (autologous, n = 2; dermal fat, n = 3, ex vivo, n = 2), flaps (n = 2), and penile disassembly (n = 1). Some men reported a significant size increase; however, complications were not infrequent, and none of the techniques was externally validated. When provided, counseling was effective, with the majority of men coming to understand that their penis was normal and unwilling to undergo any further treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment of small penis in normal men is supported by scant, low-quality evidence. Structured counseling should be always performed, with extenders eventually used by those still seeking enhancement. Injectables and surgery should remain a last option, considered unethical outside of clinical trials. Marra G, Drury A, Tran L, et al. Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:158-180.
INTRODUCTION: Evidence on penile enhancement interventions is lacking. Nonetheless, many non-evidence-based solutions are readily available. AIM: To investigate enhancement and nonenhancement interventions in men without penile abnormalities seeking to increase penis size. METHODS: We performed a systematic review with no time restrictions adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies with fewer than 10 cases or including men with organic penile pathologies or previous penile surgeries were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: When available, treatment efficacy was evaluated based on patient satisfaction, penile size increase, and complications. RESULTS: We included 17 studies, assessing a total of 21 interventions in 1,192 men screened, with 773 followed up after nonsurgical (n = 248) or surgical (n = 525) treatment. The quality of the studies was poor in terms of methodology for patient selection and outcomes assessment. The vast majority of series reported normal penile size. Among nonsurgical treatments, extenders increased flaccid length (but by <2 cm), injectables increased girth but were associated with a high complication rate, and vacuum devices did not increase size. Surgical interventions included suspensory ligament incision (the most used method; n = 12), tissue grafting (autologous, n = 2; dermal fat, n = 3, ex vivo, n = 2), flaps (n = 2), and penile disassembly (n = 1). Some men reported a significant size increase; however, complications were not infrequent, and none of the techniques was externally validated. When provided, counseling was effective, with the majority of men coming to understand that their penis was normal and unwilling to undergo any further treatment. CONCLUSION: Treatment of small penis in normal men is supported by scant, low-quality evidence. Structured counseling should be always performed, with extenders eventually used by those still seeking enhancement. Injectables and surgery should remain a last option, considered unethical outside of clinical trials. Marra G, Drury A, Tran L, et al. Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:158-180.
Authors: Carlo Bettocchi; Andrea Alberto Checchia; Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Anna Ricapito; Gian Maria Busetto; Luigi Cormio; Giuseppe Carrieri Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.408
Authors: Dae Yul Yang; Hyun Cheol Jeong; Kyungtae Ko; Seong Ho Lee; Young Goo Lee; Won Ki Lee Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-04-05 Impact factor: 4.241