Skip to main content

Small Penis Syndrome (SPS) & Penile Dysmorphic Disorder (PDD)

Small penis syndrome (SPS) is excessive anxiety about a penis of normal measured size; penile dysmorphic disorder (PDD) is body dysmorphic disorder focused on a perceived penile flaw that causes significant impairment.[37] Cosmetic penile augmentation encompasses a range of investigational and controversial procedures aimed at increasing penile length and/or girth for aesthetic or psychosexual purposes. The Sexual Medicine Society of North America (SMSNA) issued formal position statements on cosmetic penile enhancement in 2024, acknowledging the growing interest while emphasizing that most procedures remain investigational with limited high-quality evidence.[1] The reconstructive urologist's first job is to distinguish objective micropenis from normal anatomy with size-related anxiety (SPS/SPA), assess separately for PDD or another psychiatric condition, and lead with multidisciplinary evaluation before any procedure.[37]

Part I: Definitions and clinical context​

Normal penile dimensions​

Veale et al. (2015) pooled health-professional measurements from up to 15,521 men, but nomogram denominators differed: 10,704 for flaccid length, 14,160 for stretched length, 692 for erect length, 9,407 for flaccid circumference, and 381 for erect circumference.[2]

  • Flaccid pendulous length. Mean 9.16 cm (SD 1.57).
  • Stretched length. Mean 13.24 cm (SD 1.89).
  • Erect length. Mean 13.12 cm (SD 1.66).
  • Flaccid circumference. Mean 9.31 cm (SD 0.90).
  • Erect circumference. Mean 11.66 cm (SD 1.10).

Micropenis​

Micropenis is a structurally normal but abnormally small penis, defined by stretched penile length more than 2.5 standard deviations below the mean for age (and population).[5][39][37] Centimeter cutoffs depend on the reference and measurement method; the frequently quoted adult figure is a stretched length below about 7.5 cm, and pediatric references are roughly below 2 cm at birth and 4 cm after age 5.[3][39] Record whether stretched length is measured from the pubic bone or penopubic skin junction to the glans tip. The skin-junction measure may underestimate erect length; bone-to-glans measurement correlates better with erect length in overweight or obese men. Interpret the result against a population- and method-appropriate reference, and separate true micropenis from concealed penis (buried, webbed, trapped or megaprepuce), where the shaft is normal but hidden.[5][37]

Micropenis: evaluation and hormonal treatment​

  • Evaluation. Before endocrine evaluation, distinguish congenital micropenis from acquired intrinsic shortening, concealed penis, and small-penis anxiety or PDD.[37] Look for associated hypospadias, incomplete scrotal fusion or cryptorchidism, which point toward a difference of sex development (DSD). When congenital micropenis raises concern for DSD, work-up includes age-interpreted basal LH, FSH and androgen measurements and chromosome analysis when indicated; specialist-directed hCG stimulation measures testosterone, DHT and androstenedione responses.[47] Hypothalamic-pituitary causes (including congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and growth hormone deficiency), partial gonadal dysgenesis, testicular regression and testosterone biosynthesis or action defects are the main causes.[4][39][40]
  • Infancy and prepuberty. Testosterone (intramuscular or topical), topical DHT, or gonadotropin therapy is tried early; response is greatest in early infancy, and endocrine treatment is effective in the prepubertal setting only.[39][40][41]
  • After puberty. The EAU recommends against testosterone or other hormonal therapy to increase penile size in post-pubertal males; treat hypogonadism when present, but for its own indications.[37]
  • Surgery for micropenis has limited evidence and variable satisfaction. EAU 2026 weakly recommends total phallic reconstruction for selected patients with congenital micropenis; radial-forearm, anterolateral-thigh and latissimus-dorsi flaps have been reported.[37] Less extensive lengthening or girth procedures give smaller gains with lower morbidity.[3][39][41][37]

Small penis syndrome (SPS) and penile dysmorphic disorder (PDD)​

The vast majority of men seeking cosmetic penile augmentation have penile dimensions within the normal range but experience significant distress about perceived inadequacy.[6][7]

  • Small penis anxiety (SPA). Worry about penile size without meeting criteria for a psychiatric disorder.
  • Penile dysmorphic disorder (PDD). A form of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), a DSM-5 psychiatric condition characterized by debilitating preoccupation with a minor or imagined physical flaw.[8][9]
  • BDD affects approximately 2.5% of the US adult population.[8] In one small series of men seeking girth augmentation (n = 37), 11% screened positive on a questionnaire and 14% (4 of 29) met criteria on clinical interview.[10]

Part II: Psychological assessment — a critical first step​

Multiple expert reviews and the SMSNA emphasize that a multidisciplinary preoperative assessment including psychiatric or psychological evaluation is needed before any intervention.[7] The Psychosexual Therapy page outlines sensate focus, CBT, MBI and PLISSIT as general approaches. For men with normal anatomy and suspected BDD/PDD, structured psychological assessment and counseling precede procedural consideration; treatment of uncontrolled psychopathology takes priority.[1][37]

Sharp et al. (2022) characterized men seeking penile girth augmentation (n = 37):[10]

  • The most common motivation was "improve self-confidence" and not sexual function.
  • Men perceived their actual penis size as significantly smaller than their ideal, the size they believed it "should be," and their expected post-augmentation size.
  • Compared with non-clinical norms, these men had higher PDD symptoms, lower self-esteem, and lower body-image-related quality of life, but comparable psychological distress.
  • Men with suspected BDD should be referred for psychiatric or psychological assessment and counseling before any procedure; men with PDD should not be offered cosmetic surgery.[7][9] For penile girth enhancement in men with PDD, the EAU strongly recommends against HA, other soft-tissue fillers, and autologous fat injection.[37]

In Sharp et al.'s six-month prospective cohort (n = 19), paired flaccid-girth measurements in seven men showed a mean increase of 3.29 cm. Among 18 questionnaire respondents, perceived girth and length remained below ideal; the actual-to-ideal gaps narrowed significantly for girth and flaccid length, but not for erect length.[11] Broader psychological well-being outcomes were mixed, with no significant changes in distress, self-esteem, or body-image quality of life.[11]

Part III: Non-invasive / conservative approaches​

Non-invasive methods should be considered as first-line treatment before surgical intervention.[12][13]

A. Penile traction devices (extenders)​

Penile traction therapy (PTT) applies sustained mechanical stretch to induce tissue elongation through cellular proliferation:[14]

  • Devices include Penimaster PRO, Andropenis, and RestoreX.
  • Small studies report modest length gains with months of use; duration and daily wear requirements depend on the device and clinical population.
  • Best evidence exists for Peyronie's disease (curvature correction) and post-prostatectomy length preservation.
  • For cosmetic lengthening in otherwise healthy men, evidence is limited but encouraging. EAU 2026 states that traction is effective for lengthening (level 3) and suggests considering it as conservative treatment .[37]
  • Evidence for cosmetic penile elongation with PTT is limited.[13]

In a post-prostatectomy RestoreX RCT, 82 men were randomized; at six months, stretched length to the corona increased by 1.6 cm in 26 traction users versus 0.3 cm in 25 controls (p<0.01).[15]

B. Vacuum erection devices (VEDs)​

VEDs create negative pressure to engorge the penis. Effective for erectile dysfunction; evidence for permanent penile lengthening is insufficient. VEDs may help maintain penile length post-prostatectomy but are not recommended as a primary cosmetic-augmentation tool.[14][16][17] The EAU 2026 text is internally inconsistent here: its evidence summary calls vacuum devices ineffective for lengthening (level 3), yet its recommendation says to consider them to increase penile length .[37]

Part IV: Injectable therapies for girth enhancement​

A. Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers​

HA is among the more studied temporary fillers for penile girth augmentation, but comparative long-term safety remains uncertain; a randomized HA-versus-PLA trial reported clinically comparable safety through 48 weeks with 31/72 dropouts.[18][19][20][37]

  • Technique. HA is injected into the subcutaneous plane (between dartos fascia and Buck's fascia) using a cannula. Across published series, mean injected shaft volumes ranged from 20 to 40 mL.[19]
  • Efficacy. A multicenter RCT (Yang et al., 2019; n = 72) compared HA versus polylactic acid (PLA) fillers and found both achieved significant girth increases maintained to 48 weeks (mean increase 16.95 mm for HA, 13.49 mm for PLA). HA was greater at 4 weeks, but the difference was no longer significant at 48 weeks; 43% of participants dropped out.[20]
  • Satisfaction. Boiko et al. (2023) reported outcomes for the 132 of 148 enrolled men who completed treatment and 3-month follow-up: mean girth enlargement was 1.7 cm at the midshaft and 1.5 cm at the glans, with significant improvements in sexual-relationship satisfaction, confidence, and self-esteem.[21]
  • Limitations. HA is resorbable and the girth effect can diminish over follow-up, so repeat injections may be needed; long-term follow-up data are limited.[6][19]

SMSNA and BAUS guidance. SMSNA (2024) describes limited data for temporary fillers and urges safety and efficacy studies in approved research protocols. BAUS AGUS (2026) recommends against absorbable injectable fillers for elective augmentation in adults without structural or functional penile abnormalities because high-quality evidence is lacking. Discuss temporary effects, repeat treatment, and complications.[1][42]

B. Polylactic acid (PLA) fillers​

PLA stimulates collagen production, but the 72-patient randomized trial found no statistically significant between-group girth difference at 48 weeks, and 31 participants dropped out.[20][37]

C. Autologous fat injection​

Fat grafting involves liposuction-harvested adipose tissue injected subcutaneously around the penile shaft.[22][18]

  • Advantages. Uses autologous tissue without an implanted synthetic filler.[48]
  • Disadvantages. Unpredictable fat resorption, irregular contour, nodule formation, calcification.[6][23]
  • Complications. Fat necrosis, asymmetry, penile deformity requiring revision.[18][23]

D. Unapproved / illicit substances — DANGEROUS​

Injection of silicone, paraffin, mineral oil, petroleum jelly, and other non-medical substances, often performed in non-sterile conditions by non-medical practitioners, represents a major public-health concern:[6][24]

  • Sclerosing lipogranuloma. Chronic granulomatous foreign-body reaction causing pain, deformity, ulceration, and fibrosis.
  • Pang et al. (2024) reported a 10-year single-center series of 35 men presenting with complications after genital foreign-material injection: silicone (45.7%) and liquid paraffin (22.9%) were the most common substances; 32/35 (91.4%) underwent surgery, and 18/35 (51%) underwent more than one procedure.[24]
  • In Pang et al.’s systematic review of 68 studies reporting patients with injection complications, 723/918 (78.8%) underwent surgery; among the reported surgical procedures, excision and primary closure with or without skin grafts accounted for 615/723 (85.1%), flaps for 89/723 (12.3%), and penile amputation for 2 cases.[24]
  • Complications include pain, erosion, inflammation, nodules, skin ulcers, necrosis, penile deformity, gangrene, and death.[6]

Illicit injectables. Silicone, paraffin, and mineral-oil injections can cause disabling sclerosing lipogranuloma.[24]

Part V: Surgical techniques for length enhancement​

A. Suspensory ligament division (ligamentolysis)​

The most established surgical technique for penile lengthening involves division of the suspensory ligament that anchors the penile root to the pubic symphysis, allowing the intracorporeal portion to advance anteriorly.[22][25]

  • Technique. Typically performed through a suprapubic incision with V-Y plasty or Z-plasty of the skin; the fundiform and suspensory ligaments are divided down to the pubic symphysis.
  • Length gain. Outcomes use different measurements and populations: Li et al. reported a mean 1.3 cm gain in flaccid stretched length after ligament division in 42 patients (range −1 to +3 cm); Deskoulidi and Caminer described 2–4 cm flaccid gain in 75 patients after combined V-Y plasty, ligament division, fat flaps and fat injection; a 16-cadaver ligament-division study found a mean experimental gain of 26.4 mm (range 4–60 mm).[25][22][26]
  • Predictors. In a 16-cadaver dissection study, shorter baseline length correlated with greater absolute length gain after ligament division (r = −0.601; p = 0.014); clinical predictive validity is untested.[26]
  • Satisfaction. Historically low: only 35% overall satisfaction in one series, and 27% in patients with PDD.[25] EAU 2026 weakly recommends suspensory ligament release, ventral phalloplasty and suprapubic lipoplasty for congenital intrinsic penile shortness and strongly recommends extensive complication counseling; it describes objective length gain and significant complications as level-3 evidence.[37] Its level-4 summary favors high-volume centers for complex penile-shortness surgery, while the explicit strong high-volume recommendation names adult-acquired buried-penis surgery.[37]
  • Limitations and risks. Gains are primarily in the flaccid state; erect-length gains are more modest. Counsel about altered erection angle, loss of proximal shaft support during penetration, sensory change or erectile dysfunction from neurovascular injury, and recurrent retraction if the divided ligament reattaches.[48]

Dead-space management. Deskoulidi and Caminer (2023) described distally based fat flaps advanced into the dead space after ligament division, combined with fat injection for girth. In 75 patients, they reported 2–4 cm flaccid-length gain and described complications as minimal without quantifying their rate; three returned for fat-injection revision at 6–12 months, and long-term outcomes remain unclear.[22]

Novel approach. Karimian et al. (2026) described a trans-scrotal approach for suspensory ligament release in 21 patients, achieving 2.6 cm flaccid and 2.4 cm stretched-length gains with no major complications; 14 of the 21 patients had BDD.[27]

Society positions. SMSNA 2024 says suspensory-ligament division may be considered for select, appropriately counseled patients by experienced surgeons.[1] For elective augmentation in adults without structural or functional penile abnormalities, BAUS AGUS 2026 recommends against surgical techniques because high-quality supporting evidence is lacking.[42] In its section on congenital intrinsic penile shortness, EAU 2026 weakly recommends suspensory-ligament release for lengthening.[37]

B. Sliding / slicing techniques (penile disassembly)​

More aggressive techniques involve partial disassembly of the penis with interposition grafts to increase length. These carry higher complication rates (glans hypoesthesia or ischemia)[1] and are reserved for specific pathologic indications: severe Peyronie's disease with marked shortening and complex deformity, typically combined with concurrent IPP. These operations are not appropriate for cosmetic length augmentation in men with normal anatomy and normal erectile function; EAU 2026 recommends against penile prosthesis implantation, penile disassembly or the sliding technique in men seeking lengthening .[37] For the full per-technique deep-dive (Rolle 2012 sliding, Egydio 2018 MUST, Perovic 1998 / 2001 disassembly antecedent, Egydio 2004 geometrical-principle relaxing incision) see the canonical Peyronie's-section page: Sliding & Slicing (Penile-Disassembly) Techniques.[28]

SMSNA position. The SMSNA considers sliding and slicing techniques investigational and recommends that they be performed only with IRB oversight, in research settings, by experienced prosthetic surgeons after counseling about potentially severe complications such as glans necrosis.[1]

Part VI: Surgical techniques for girth enhancement​

A. Dermal / allograft wrapping​

Grafts (acellular dermal matrix, bovine pericardium, or autologous dermal grafts) are placed in the subcutaneous plane around the penile shaft:[29][6]

  • The Hardrock Sandwich Technique (HST) (Sertkaya et al., 2025; n = 456) combines bovine-pericardial grafts with autologous plasma gel as a "sandwich" construct plus SLD plus testicular-prosthesis placement, achieving a 43.1% girth increase (4.51 cm) and 20.8% length increase measured on postoperative day 1, with 83% reporting improved satisfaction at 1 year and no erectile or ejaculatory problems reported in that retrospective single-center cohort. Complications: seroma 6.1%, wound dehiscence 2.3%, infection 2.7%, hematoma 1.4%, and skin necrosis requiring graft removal in 1/456 (0.22%).[29]
  • Graft implantation may have a negative impact on penile length due to tissue contraction.[6]

B. Autologous scrotal dartos flap​

Lei et al. (2022) treated 29 men with a scrotal dartos flap turned into the plane between superficial penile fascia and Buck’s fascia; among 27 with complete 6-month follow-up, mean girth improved by 3.59 cm (50.8%), with no serious adverse events reported.[30]

C. Silicone sleeve implants — Penuma® / Himplant​

The Pre-Formed Penile Silicone Block used in the Penuma/Himplant family has FDA 510(k) clearance for cosmetic correction of soft-tissue deformities under K181387 and for aesthetic penile augmentation under K220760 (2022).[31][32][38][45] Himplant is a rebranded iteration of the Penuma device family and can be grouped with Penuma for indication and explant counseling; changes in materials and implantation technique limit how directly older Penuma outcome rates apply to newer devices and approaches.[1] For the full per-device deep-dive (design, FDA status, infrapubic versus concealed-scrotal technique, complete outcome series, removal-and-rehabilitation program, SMSNA 2024 position) see the canonical atlas page: Penuma & Himplant.

ParameterElist et al. (2018; n = 400)Siegal et al. (2023; n = 49)
Girth increase56.7% (8.5 → 13.4 cm midshaft, 30–90 days)[31]Not separately reported
Length increaseNot primary endpointMean individual gain +4.9 ± 2.9 cm (reported as 52%); group means 8.1 → 12.3 cm flaccid[33]
Satisfaction81% "high" or "very high" among long-term respondents (77% of 400) at 2–6 years[31]Not reported
Self-confidence and self-esteem improvement83% with a two-category APPSSI improvement at 6–8 weeks; 72% among long-term respondents (77% of 400) at 2–6 years[31]—
Seroma4.8%[31]—
Infection3.3%[31]2% (1 / 49)[33]
Erosion—4.1% (2 / 49)[33]
Device removal3%[31]—
[31][33]

Elist et al. is a retrospective single-surgeon (device inventor) series: 526 men were operated on but only the 400 who consented were analyzed, and satisfaction used a nonvalidated instrument. Siegal et al. followed patients for a mean of 6 months.[31][33]

Complications. In a four-center retrospective series of 299 selected recipients, erosion occurred in 15/299 (5.0%) and grade IIIb explantation in 21/299 (7.0%) at median 11.6-month follow-up; uncircumcised men and men with prior penile enhancement were excluded.[49] A 2026 single-arm meta-analysis of 12 publications pooled four cohorts and estimated erosion or exposure at 5.12% and explantation or removal at 7.08%.[50] Ramazan et al. (2026) summarized infection, erosion, seroma, necrosis and severe deformity after silicone sleeve implantation, with removal in up to 10% of the cohorts they discussed.[6] A separate 2024 single-surgeon retrospective series reported removal in 11/92 men (12%): 8/39 (21%) after an infrapubic approach and 3/53 (6%) after a lateral scrotal approach; approach selection was not randomized.[43]

SMSNA position. Silicone sleeve surgery should be limited to IRB oversight, long-term safety endpoints and no patient cost, with experienced surgeons and explicit counseling about potentially severe complications.[1]

Furr et al. (2018) reported on 11 patients presenting to a referral center with severe complications of various genital-enlargement surgeries, including sexually disabling penile deformity, severe shortening, curvature, edema, non-healing wounds, and sexual dysfunction. Ten required corrective surgery, with 3 needing split-thickness skin grafting.[23]

Part VII: Combined procedures​

Many surgeons now combine lengthening and girth enhancement in a single operation:[22][28][29]

  • Suspensory-ligament division and fat injection (Deskoulidi & Caminer, 2023).[22]
  • Suspensory-ligament release and bovine-pericardial graft and plasma gel and testicular prosthesis (Hardrock Sandwich Technique).[29]
  • Suprapubic liposuction and ligament release and acellular dermal matrix spacer (Zhang et al., 2019).[34]

Vyas et al. pooled 16 studies (1,192 patients) and found a 14.6% complication rate across all augmentation techniques; combined length-and-girth procedures had the highest complication rate.[28]

Part VIII: Complications — comprehensive overview​

ModalityCommon complicationsSevere complications
HA / PLA fillersInjection-site reactions, edema, nodulesMigration, possible vascular occlusion; glans ischemia has been reported after glans HA injection for premature ejaculation, with no established mechanism or risk estimate for shaft-girth injection.[44]
Autologous fatUnpredictable fat resorption, asymmetry, nodules[6]Fat necrosis, penile deformity
Illicit injectables (silicone, paraffin, mineral oil)Sclerosing lipogranuloma, pain, deformityNecrosis, gangrene, penile amputation, death
Dermal / allograft wrappingSeroma, wound dehiscence, infectionSkin necrosis, graft failure, penile shortening
Silicone sleeve (Penuma / Himplant)Seroma (4.8%), scar (4.5%), infection (3.3%)[31]Erosion, severe deformity, removal (up to 10% in cohorts reviewed by Ramazan et al.; 11/92 [12%] overall, 8/39 [21%] infrapubic and 3/53 [6%] lateral scrotal in a separate single-surgeon series)[6][43]
Suspensory-ligament divisionAltered erection angle, scar contracturePenile instability, retraction, dissatisfaction
[6][18][23][24][25][28][31][1]

Imaging of complications. Abo-Hedibah et al. (2021) reviewed imaging features of inflammatory complications after filler injection: granuloma, abscess, and cellulitis extending to the scrotum, perineum, or deep pelvic organs. Ultrasound, MRI, and ascending urethrography play important roles in diagnosis.[35] For an early, noninfected nodule after confirmed HA injection, massage or warm compresses may help; consider hyaluronidase if conservative treatment fails. An abscess may require antibiotics and incision and drainage, while refractory nodules may need excision.[46]

Part IX: SMSNA position statements (2024)​

The SMSNA issued 6 position statements covering 5 distinct procedure categories:[1]

  1. Injectable soft-tissue fillers. Limited data suggest potential cosmetic girth benefit from temporary HA and PLA fillers with an acceptable safety profile; SMSNA urges safety and efficacy analyses under IRB-approved research protocols and strongly recommends against permanent fillers such as paraffin and silicone.[1]
  2. Suspensory-ligament division. May increase flaccid length in experienced hands; may be offered by experienced surgeons to select patients counseled about expectations and complications, including erectile dysfunction, sensory changes and penile instability.[1] Satisfaction was 35% overall in one series.[25]
  3. Graft-and-flap procedures. SMSNA recommends against cosmetic augmentation with grafts or flaps outside a research protocol because long-term outcome data and external validation are limited.[1]
  4. Silicone sleeve implants (Penuma and Himplant). Investigational; SMSNA recommends IRB oversight, long-term safety tracking and no patient cost.[1]
  5. Sliding / slicing techniques. Investigational; IRB oversight, research settings and experienced prosthetic surgeons only, after counseling about potentially severe complications such as glans necrosis.[1] 6.[31][6] Patient selection. Penile dysmorphic disorder must be ruled out before invasive treatment, using questionnaires such as the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Symptom Scale or Questionnaire plus professional psychological or psychiatric assessment; men with uncontrolled psychological conditions are deferred pending treatment and psychological clearance.[1]

The EAU Sexual and Reproductive Health guideline (2026 chapter on penile size abnormalities and dysmorphophobia) takes a different position on selected fillers and lengthening procedures: ask about BDD or PDD in men with normal-sized penises who want enlargement and refer suspected BDD for mental health care ; do not use silicone, paraffin or petroleum jelly for girth enhancement ; do not use HA, other fillers or fat injection for girth in men with PDD , although it otherwise allows HA, soft-tissue fillers and autologous fat for girth ; do not use grafts for girth (strong, experimental) or biodegradable scaffolds and the subcutaneous implant (Penuma) (strong, experimental); and do not use hormonal therapy to increase penile size after puberty .[37] It reports patient satisfaction above 78% with soft-tissue fillers and no complication beyond temporary pain and swelling in the reviewed series (level 3), and weakly recommends total phallic reconstruction for congenital micropenis or traumatic loss.[37] It also notes that high-level evidence and standardized outcome measures are lacking, that traction therapy has acceptable reported outcomes, and that surgical lengthening or girth procedures should follow extensive counseling.[37][40]

Part X: Management algorithm​

Based on the SMSNA position statement and expert consensus:[1][7][12]

  1. Comprehensive evaluation. Take a medical and sexual history; examine for congenital micropenis, acquired shortening, concealed penis, SPS and PDD. Record stretched length and distal and midshaft girth; before considering surgery, document flaccid and pharmacologically induced erect dimensions.[37]
  2. Psychological screening. In men with a normal-sized penis, the EAU weakly recommends validated BDD screening, for example the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire or Cosmetic Procedure Screening Scale for Penile Dysmorphic Disorder, and strongly recommends mental-health referral when BDD is suspected. MGSIS and IIEF-5 assess genital self-image and erectile function, not BDD diagnosis.[37]
  3. Patient counseling. Discuss normal penile-size nomograms; address unrealistic expectations; provide information on all treatment options.
  4. Conservative management first:
    • Psychological / sexual counseling.
    • Penile traction therapy (4–6 month trial).
    • Weight management when relevant to buried / concealed penis.
  5. Procedural discussion. Failure of counseling or traction does not create an indication for escalation to grafts or implants. Apply the procedure-specific research restrictions above; avoid augmentation in untreated PDD. Discuss risks and the option of no procedure. The 2026 Fifth ICSM recommends counseling patients about the high likelihood of additional procedures after cosmetic penile surgery because suboptimal cosmetic or functional outcomes are not uncommon .[48]
    • Buried penis. Escutcheonectomy, panniculectomy, suprapubic liposuction (these are reconstructive, not purely cosmetic; see Adult-Acquired Buried Penis). 6.[31][6] Follow-up. Long-term monitoring for complications; psychological reassessment.

Part XI: Key principles and caveats​

  1. Most men seeking augmentation have normal penile dimensions. In men with a normal-sized penis seeking enlargement, inquire about BDD/PDD and consider validated screening.[6][10][37]
  2. High-quality evidence is limited. Randomized filler studies exist, but overall study quality is low, with inconsistent methodology for measuring outcomes and reporting complications.[28][36]
  3. Non-invasive approaches should be offered first. Traction may be discussed with realistic expectations about limited evidence.[13]
  4. HA is a temporary, relatively well-studied filler for girth; repeat treatment may be needed, and comparative long-term safety remains uncertain.[19][20]
  5. Suspensory-ligament division provides modest, variable length gains. In Li et al.’s 42-patient series, satisfaction was 35% overall and 27% in the PDD subgroup.[25] 6.[31][6] Penuma / Himplant carries risks of erosion, infection, removal, shortening and deformity.[31][6]
  6. Illicit injections (silicone, paraffin, mineral oil) are extremely dangerous and can cause devastating complications including gangrene, amputation, and death.[6][24]
  7. Complications are likely under-reported. Referral-center series reveal severe deformities and functional compromise in men with previously normal anatomy.[23]
  8. Satisfaction does not always correlate with objective size change. Psychosocial improvement may be independent of measured augmentation.[21][11]
  9. A multidisciplinary approach involving urology, plastic surgery, psychology or psychiatry, and sexual medicine is necessary for optimal patient selection and outcomes.[7][1]

See Also​

References​

1. Trost L, Khera M, Köhler T, et al. "Cosmetic penile enhancement procedures: an SMSNA position statement." J Sex Med. 2024;21(6):573–578. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae045

2. Veale D, Miles S, Bramley S, Muir G, Hodsoll J. "Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15,521 men." BJU Int. 2015;115(6):978–986. doi:10.1111/bju.13010

3. Kayes O, Shabbir M, Ralph D, Minhas S. "Therapeutic strategies for patients with micropenis or penile dysmorphic disorder." Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9(9):499–507. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2012.150

4. León NY, Reyes AP, Harley VR. "A clinical algorithm to diagnose differences of sex development." Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7(7):560–574. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30339-5

5. Cimador M, Catalano P, Ortolano R, Giuffrè M. "The inconspicuous penis in children." Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(4):205–215. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2015.49

6. Ramazan M, Øbro LF, Wiborg MH, et al. "Complications of penile augmentation: a narrative review of injectables, implants, and surgical grafts." Int J Impot Res. 2026;38(3):238–246. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01190-8

7. Schifano N, Cakir OO, Castiglione F, Montorsi F, Garaffa G. "Multidisciplinary approach and management of patients who seek medical advice for penile size concerns: a narrative review." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(5):434–451. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00444-5

8. Mansfield AK. "Genital manifestations of body dysmorphic disorder in men: a review." Fertil Steril. 2020;113(1):16–20. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.028

9. Veale D, Miles S, Read J, et al. "Phenomenology of men with body dysmorphic disorder concerning penis size compared to men anxious about their penis size and to men without concerns: a cohort study." Body Image. 2015;13:53–61. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.008

10. Sharp G, Fernando AN, Kyron M, Oates J, McEvoy P. "Motivations and psychological characteristics of men seeking penile girth augmentation." Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42(11):1305–1315. doi:10.1093/asj/sjac112

11. Sharp G, Fernando AN, Oates J, McEvoy P. "Men's experiences and psychological outcomes of nonsurgical medical penile girth augmentation: a preliminary prospective study." Aesthet Surg J. 2023;43(2):181–191. doi:10.1093/asj/sjac243

12. García Gómez B, Alonso Isa M, García Rojo E, Fiorillo A, Romero Otero J. "Penile length augmentation surgical and non-surgical approaches for aesthetical purposes." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(4):332–336. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00488-7

13. Oderda M, Gontero P. "Non-invasive methods of penile lengthening: fact or fiction?" BJU Int. 2011;107(8):1278–1282. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09647.x

14. Sultana A, Grice P, Vukina J, Pearce I, Modgil V. "Indications and characteristics of penile traction and vacuum erection devices." Nat Rev Urol. 2022;19(2):84–100. doi:10.1038/s41585-021-00532-7

15. Toussi A, Ziegelmann M, Yang D, et al. "Efficacy of a novel penile traction device in improving penile length and erectile function post-prostatectomy: results from a single-center randomized, controlled trial." J Urol. 2021;206(2):416–426. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001792

16. Shu T, Ren D, Wang R. "The role of vacuum erection device and penile traction therapy in patients after radical prostatectomy: a narrative review." Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01092-9

17. Trost LW, Munarriz R, Wang R, Morey A, Levine L. "External mechanical devices and vascular surgery for erectile dysfunction." J Sex Med. 2016;13(11):1579–1617. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.09.008

18. Manfredi C, Romero Otero J, Djinovic R. "Penile girth enhancement procedures for aesthetic purposes." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(4):337–342. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00459-y

19. Salloum A, Bazzi N, Haber R. "Nonsurgical methods for penile augmentation: a systematic review." Dermatol Surg. 2021;47(3):e81–e85. doi:10.1097/DSS.0000000000002816

20. Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, Lee WK. "A comparison of the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid and polylactic acid filler injection in penile augmentation: a multicenter, patient/evaluator-blinded, randomized trial." J Sex Med. 2019;16(4):577–585. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.01.310

21. Boiko MI, Notsek MS, Boiko OM. "The efficacy of injection penile girth enhancement as an option for small penis syndrome management." Aesthet Surg J. 2023;44(1):84–91. doi:10.1093/asj/sjad152

22. Deskoulidi PI, Caminer D. "Lengthening phalloplasty with division of the suspensory ligament and distally based fat flaps in penis enlargement operations." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;152(3):434e–437e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010313

23. Furr J, Hebert K, Wisenbaugh E, Gelman J. "Complications of genital enlargement surgery." J Sex Med. 2018;15(12):1811–1817. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.10.007

24. Pang KH, Randhawa K, Tang S, et al. "Complications and outcomes following injection of foreign material into the male external genitalia for augmentation: a single-centre experience and systematic review." Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(5):498–508. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00675-8

25. Li CY, Kayes O, Kell PD, et al. "Penile suspensory ligament division for penile augmentation: indications and results." Eur Urol. 2006;49(4):729–733. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.020

26. Ramos M, Varanda Pereira A, Silva L, Inácio AR, Álvares Furtado I. "Morphometric predictors of penile-length increase after division of its suspensory ligament." Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(8):1635–1643. doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03837-7

27. Karimian B, Shamshirgaran A, Farsani RM, Mohammadi A, Aghamir SMK. "Trans-scrotal suspensory ligament release: a novel technique for penile-length augmentation." Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50(3):1431–1438. doi:10.1007/s00266-025-05053-x

28. Vyas KS, Abu-Ghname A, Banuelos J, Morrison SD, Manrique O. "Aesthetic augmentation phalloplasty: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(5):995–1006. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007249

29. Sertkaya Z, Albayrak AT, Başağa Y, Sökmen D. "A retrospective evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of an innovative penile-enlargement approach: the Hardrock Sandwich technique." Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01172-w

30. Lei J, Guo Y, Luo C, Su X. "Preliminary application of a novel autologous scrotal dartos flap method for enlargement of penile girth in men with small penis syndrome." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(5):1019–1027. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009656

31. Elist JJ, Valenzuela R, Hillelsohn J, Feng T, Hosseini A. "A single-surgeon retrospective and preliminary evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the Penuma silicone sleeve implant for elective cosmetic correction of the flaccid penis." J Sex Med. 2018;15(9):1216–1223. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.07.006

32. Wilson SK, Picazo AL. "Update on the Penuma — an FDA-cleared penile implant for aesthetic enhancement of the flaccid penis." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(4):369–374. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00510-y

33. Siegal AR, Zisman A, Sljivich M, Razdan S, Valenzuela RJ. "Outcomes of a single center's initial experience with the Penuma penile implant." Urology. 2023;171:236–243. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.07.066

34. Zhang X, Huang Z, Xiao Y, et al. "Suspensory ligament release combined with acellular dermal matrix filler in infrapubic space: a new method for penile-length augmentation." Andrologia. 2019;51(9):e13351. doi:10.1111/and.13351

35. Abo-Hedibah SA, Badawi AN, Aly SA, Ismail SRM, Elmokadem AH. "Penile girth augmentation by injectable fillers: a comprehensive review of imaging features and inflammatory complications." Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(4):1703–1717. doi:10.1007/s00261-020-02788-w

36. Romero-Otero J, Manfredi C, Ralph D, et al. "Non-invasive and surgical penile-enhancement interventions for aesthetic or therapeutic purposes: a systematic review." BJU Int. 2021;127(3):269–291. doi:10.1111/bju.15145

37. European Association of Urology. Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Limited Update March 2026, section 9 (penile size abnormalities and dysmorphophobia). Guideline chapter

38. US Food and Drug Administration. Pre-Formed Penile Silicone Block: K181387 clearance and summary. 2019. 510(k) record

39. Khadilkar V, Mondkar SA. "Micropenis." Indian J Pediatr. 2023;90(6):598-604. doi:10.1007/s12098-023-04540-w

40. Falcone M, Bettocchi C, Carvalho J, et al. "European Association of Urology guidelines on penile size abnormalities and dysmorphophobia: summary of the 2023 guidelines." Eur Urol Focus. 2024;10(3):432-441. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2023.08.012

41. Salvador EDS Júnior, Favorito LA. "Micropenis in children and adolescents: a narrative review." Int Braz J Urol. 2026;52(2):e20250648. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2025.0648

42. Mubarak M, Kalejaiye O, Kumar V, et al. "British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) consensus document on male genital augmentation and enhancement procedures." J Clin Urol. 2026;19(2):149–166. doi:10.1177/20514158251391054

43. Salkowski M, Levine LA. "Outcomes and patient satisfaction after Penuma silicone implant surgery via two surgical approaches." Ther Adv Urol. 2024;16:17562872241280021. doi:10.1177/17562872241280021

44. Karamık K, Yıldız A, Koraş Ö, Arslan M. "Glanular ischemia following glans penis augmentation: a rare case report." Urol Int. 2026;110(2):208–212. doi:10.1159/000547421

45. US Food and Drug Administration. Pre-Formed Penile Silicone Block: K220760 clearance and summary. 2022. 510(k) record

46. Pignanelli M, Williams JM, Fernandez Crespo RE, et al. "Complications and management of penile enhancement procedures." Transl Androl Urol. 2025;14(10):3367–3376. doi:10.21037/tau-23-519

47. Ahmed SF, Achermann J, Alderson J, et al. "Society for Endocrinology UK Guidance on the initial evaluation of a suspected difference or disorder of sex development (Revised 2021)." Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2021;95(6):818–840. doi:10.1111/cen.14528

48. Chung E, Jenkins L, Moon DG, et al. "Penile augmentation and cosmetic surgery: recommendations from the Fifth International Consultation on Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2024)." Sex Med Rev. 2026;14(1):qeaf067. doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeaf067

49. Siegal AR, Celtik KE, Razdan S, et al. "A multi-institutional update on surgical outcomes after penile silicone sleeve implantation." Ther Adv Urol. 2024;16:17562872241241858. doi:10.1177/17562872241241858

50. Yang H, Xiao W, Wang H, Tang G. "Subcutaneous penile silicone sleeve implants for penile augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis." Int J Impot Res. Published online October 5, 2026. doi:10.1038/s41443-026-01368-8