Javier Romero-Otero1,2, Celeste Manfredi3, David Ralph4, Daniar Osmonov5, Paolo Verze6, Fabio Castiglione7, Ege Can Serefoglu8, Giorgio Bozzini9, Borja García-Gómez1,2. 1. Urology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 Octubre, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain. 2. Urology Department, Hospital Universitario HM Montepríncipe, Madrid, Spain. 3. Urology Unit, Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences, and Odontostomatology, University of Naples 'Federico II', Naples, Italy. 4. Institute of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 6. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry 'Scuola Medica Salernitana', University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK. 8. Department of Urology, Biruni University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 9. Department of Urology, ASST Valle Olona, Busto A. Lombardia, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical and non-invasive penile enhancement procedures for aesthetic and therapeutic purposes. METHODS: A systematic search for papers investigating penile enhancement procedures was performed using the MEDLINE database. Articles published from January 2010 to December 2019, written in English, including >10 cases, and reporting objective length and/or girth outcomes, were included. Studies without primary data and conference abstracts were excluded. The main outcome measure was objective length and/or girth improvement. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Out of 220 unique records, a total of 57 were reviewed. Eighteen studies assessed interventions for penile enhancement in 1764 healthy men complaining of small penis. Thirty-nine studies investigated 2587 men with concomitant pathologies consisting mostly of Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction. Twenty-five studies evaluated non-invasive interventions and 32 studies assessed surgical interventions, for a total of 2192 and 2159 men, respectively. Non-invasive interventions, including traction therapies and injection of fillers, were safe and mostly efficacious, whereas surgical interventions were associated with minor complications and mostly increased penile dimensions and/or corrected penile curvature. Overall, the quality of studies was low, and standardized criteria to evaluate and report efficacy and safety of procedures, as well as patient satisfaction, were missing. CONCLUSION: The quality of the studies on penile enhancement procedures published in the last decade is still low. This prevents us from establishing recommendations based on scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions that are performed to increase the penis size for aesthetic or therapeutic indications.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical and non-invasive penile enhancement procedures for aesthetic and therapeutic purposes. METHODS: A systematic search for papers investigating penile enhancement procedures was performed using the MEDLINE database. Articles published from January 2010 to December 2019, written in English, including >10 cases, and reporting objective length and/or girth outcomes, were included. Studies without primary data and conference abstracts were excluded. The main outcome measure was objective length and/or girth improvement. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Out of 220 unique records, a total of 57 were reviewed. Eighteen studies assessed interventions for penile enhancement in 1764 healthy men complaining of small penis. Thirty-nine studies investigated 2587 men with concomitant pathologies consisting mostly of Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction. Twenty-five studies evaluated non-invasive interventions and 32 studies assessed surgical interventions, for a total of 2192 and 2159 men, respectively. Non-invasive interventions, including traction therapies and injection of fillers, were safe and mostly efficacious, whereas surgical interventions were associated with minor complications and mostly increased penile dimensions and/or corrected penile curvature. Overall, the quality of studies was low, and standardized criteria to evaluate and report efficacy and safety of procedures, as well as patient satisfaction, were missing. CONCLUSION: The quality of the studies on penile enhancement procedures published in the last decade is still low. This prevents us from establishing recommendations based on scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions that are performed to increase the penis size for aesthetic or therapeutic indications.
Authors: Sun Tae Ahn; Ji Sung Shim; Woong Jin Bae; Sae Woong Kim; Je Jong Kim; Du Geon Moon Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 5.400