King's College London

Research portal

Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Standard

Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size. / Marra, Giancarlo; Drury, Andrew; Tran, Lisa; Veale, David; Muir, Gordon H.

In: Sexual Medicine Reviews, Vol. 8, No. 1, 01.01.2020, p. 158-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Harvard

Marra, G, Drury, A, Tran, L, Veale, D & Muir, GH 2020, 'Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size', Sexual Medicine Reviews, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 158-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004

APA

Marra, G., Drury, A., Tran, L., Veale, D., & Muir, G. H. (2020). Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 8(1), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004

Vancouver

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. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2020 Jan 1;8(1):158-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004

Author

Marra, Giancarlo ; Drury, Andrew ; Tran, Lisa ; Veale, David ; Muir, Gordon H. / Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size. In: Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2020 ; Vol. 8, No. 1. pp. 158-180.

Bibtex Download

@article{39c926da7287463ebf83560429f8df8e,
title = "Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size",
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. 2019;XX:XXX–XXX.",
keywords = "Outcome Measures, Penile Dysmorphic Disorder, Penile Enhancement, Small Penis, Small Penis Syndrome, Treatment",
author = "Giancarlo Marra and Andrew Drury and Lisa Tran and David Veale and Muir, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "158--180",
journal = "Sexual Medicine Reviews",
issn = "2050-0513",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size

AU - Marra, Giancarlo

AU - Drury, Andrew

AU - Tran, Lisa

AU - Veale, David

AU - Muir, Gordon H.

PY - 2020/1/1

Y1 - 2020/1/1

N2 - 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. 2019;XX:XXX–XXX.

AB - 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. 2019;XX:XXX–XXX.

KW - Outcome Measures

KW - Penile Dysmorphic Disorder

KW - Penile Enhancement

KW - Small Penis

KW - Small Penis Syndrome

KW - Treatment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064538813&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85064538813

VL - 8

SP - 158

EP - 180

JO - Sexual Medicine Reviews

JF - Sexual Medicine Reviews

SN - 2050-0513

IS - 1

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454