Premium
Non‐invasive and surgical penile enhancement interventions for aesthetic or therapeutic purposes: a systematic review
Author(s) -
RomeroOtero Javier,
Manfredi Celeste,
Ralph David,
Osmonov Daniar,
Verze Paolo,
Castiglione Fabio,
Serefoglu Ege Can,
Bozzini Giorgio,
GarcíaGómez Borja
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.15145
Subject(s) - medicine , psychological intervention , peyronie's disease , medline , erectile dysfunction , systematic review , surgery , evidence based medicine , general surgery , alternative medicine , pathology , psychiatry , political science , law
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.