| Literature DB >> 35383340 |
Carlo Bettocchi1, Andrea Alberto Checchia2, Ugo Giovanni Falagario2, Anna Ricapito2, Gian Maria Busetto2, Luigi Cormio2, Giuseppe Carrieri2.
Abstract
The reason behind the spread of penis enlargement practices over time is rooted in the virility that the appearance of the genitals can give a man, as well as an altered perception of his own body. The approach should be to modulate the interventions on the real needs of patients, carefully evaluating the history, the psychological picture, and possible surgical advantages. The aim of this study was to shed light on cosmetic surgery of male genitalia through minimally invasive and more radical techniques, with the purpose of laying the foundation for possible indications and recommendations for the future. A non-systematic literature review using the PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted to retrieve papers written in English on cosmetic surgery of the penis published over the past 15 years. Papers discussing cosmetic surgery in patients with concomitant pathologies associated with sexual dysfunction were excluded. The main outcomes recorded were change in penile dimensions in term of length and girth and surgical complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35383340 PMCID: PMC9117127 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-022-00556-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Impot Res ISSN: 0955-9930 Impact factor: 2.408
Fig. 1Psychiatric background and Management flowchart for patients seeking penile enhancement.
*After complete counseling about complications and risk of failure. PDD: Penile Dysmorphic Disorder. SPA: Small Penis Anxiety. COPS-P: Cosmetic Procedure Screening Scale for PDD. CBT: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. APPSSI: The Augmantation Phalloplasty Patient Selection and Satisfaction Inventory. QoL: Quality of Life. IIEF: International Index of Erectile Dysfunction.
Penile lengthening: non invasive treatment. A comparison between the outcomes from vacuum and traction therapy for penile lengthening, resulting from several studies.
| STUDIES | COHORT | LENGTHENING, mean cm increase (time) | GIRTHENING, mean cm increase (time) | COMPLICATIONS, Number | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Mean (years) | Stretched Penile length, Mean cm | ||||||
| VACUUM DEVICE | Aghamir et al. [ | 27 | 24 | 7.6 | 1 cm (8 months) | N/A | Glans numbness, 1 Hematoma penis, 1 |
| Abdel Raheem et al. 2010 | 31 | 51 | 13 | 0.5 cm (3 months) | N/A | Minor bruising, 2 Pump painful, 1 | |
| TRACTION DEVICE | Gontero et al. [ | 16 | 45.7 | 9.62 | 0.38 cm (6 months) | 0.1 cm (6 months) | Pain and penile bruising, 1 |
| Nowroozi et al. [ | 44 | 30.1 | 11.2 | 1.3 cm (6 months) | 0.2 cm (3 months) | Pain, 2 Bruising, 1 Glans numbness, 1 | |
| Nikoobakht et al. [ | 23 | 26.5 | 11.56 | 1.7 cm (3 months) | 0.2 cm (1 month) | N/A | |
Invasive treatment for penile enlargement. A comparison between the outcomes from soft tissue filling, grafting and biodegradable scaffolds implantation for penile girthening, resulting from several studies.
| STUDIES | Age (years) | Pre-operatory GIRTH | THERAPY | POST- OPERATORY GIRTH | SATISFACTION | COMPLICATIONS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOFT TISSUE FILLERS | Kwak et al. 2010 | 41 | 42.5 | At midshaft 7.48 (SD 0. 35) cm | 20.56 ml of HA | +3.92, SD 0.25 cm (1 month) | +3.78, SD 0.26 cm (18 month) | 18 months 100% patients satisfied (VAS) | Not reported |
| Casavantes et al. 2015 | 203 | 37 | Mid 10.54 (SD 1.49) cm | 20 ml PMMA | Base 13 (SD 1.46) cm | Mid 12.76 (SD 1.41) cm | 83%patients satisfied (grade 8–10) | -Nodules (52%) -Sensitivity decreased (2%) -Erectile function decreased (1.5%) | |
| GRAFTS | Spyropoulos et al. [ | 5 | 30 | Subcoronal 6.0 (SD 0.4) cm | Autologous Dermal fat graft | Base + 2.3, SD 0.25 cm | Subcoronal +2.6, SD 0.25 cm | 7.54 (Post operatory APPSSI) | -Curvature with pain (25%) -Pain on erection and hypertrophic scar formation (75%) |
| Alei et al. [ | 60 | 28.2 | Flaccid 8.1 cm | Porcine dermal acellular matrix graft | Flaccid 11.3 cm | Erect 13.2 cm | 98% patients satisfied (Post operatory APPSSI) | -Moderate fibrosis with minor retractions (6.21%) -Suture dehiscent (5.58%) | |
| BIODEGRADABLE SCAFFOLDS | Djordjevic et al. [ | 21 | 28 | Flaccid 11.6 (SD 0.8) cm | PLGA scaffold + Fibroblasts | Flaccid + 1.1, SD 0.4 cm | Erect +1.0, SD 0.3 cm | 100% patients satisfied (Mark 3–5) | -Partial superficial necrosis (10%) |
| Zhe Jin et al. 2010 | 69 | 33 | Flaccid 8.18 (SD 0.83) cm Erect STUDIES | PLGA scaffold + Fibroblasts | Flaccid + 3.15, SD 0.42 cm | Erect +2.47, SD 0.49 cm | 94.2% patients satisfied (VAS 3–10) | -Subcutaneous edema (2%) -Pinpoint erosion at the suture (2%) | |
N number of patients treated and evaluated on follow up, Age mean age of the cohort patients, APPSSI The Augmantation Phalloplasty Patient Selection and Satisfaction Inventory, VAS Visual Analogue Scale, PMMA polymethyl-methacrylate Microspheres, HA hyaluronic acid, PLGA poly-lactic-co-glycolic acid.