Table 2 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.
From: Male esthetic genital surgery: recommendations and gaps to be filled
| Â | STUDIES | n | 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. [82] | 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. [86] | 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. [91] | 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%) | |
