Skip to main content

Penoscrotal-Web Correction (Ventral Phalloplasty)

Penoscrotal-web correction is a cosmetic and functional surgical procedure that eliminates the web of scrotal skin extending onto the ventral penile shaft, thereby increasing the visible penile length, creating a more defined penoscrotal junction, and improving condom fit and sexual function. It is described as "simple, safe, and reproducible" and can be performed as a standalone cosmetic procedure or as an adjunct to penile-prosthesis implantation, suspensory-ligament release, or other genital aesthetic surgeries.[1][2][3]

For the broader male cosmetic-genital-surgery decision framework see the Male Cosmetic Genital Surgery atlas page. For the related but distinct skin-resection procedure see Reduction Scrotoplasty. For the foundational geometric flap principles see Z-Plasty and V-Y Advancement.

I. Definition and Anatomy of Penoscrotal Webbing​

Penoscrotal webbing (PSW) — also called "webbed penis" — is a condition in which scrotal skin inserts abnormally high on the ventral penile shaft, creating a web-like membrane that tethers the ventral penis to the scrotum. This obscures the ventral penile shaft, shortens the visible penile length, and blurs the normal penoscrotal angle.[4][5][6]

Normal anatomy. The penoscrotal junction is a well-defined angle where ventral penile skin meets anterior scrotal skin. Normally this junction sits at or near the base of the penile shaft, creating a clear demarcation between penis and scrotum.

Webbed anatomy. In PSW, the scrotal skin extends distally along the ventral penile shaft — sometimes reaching the mid-shaft or even the coronal sulcus in severe cases. The web consists of scrotal skin, dartos fascia, and subcutaneous tissue that are continuous with the ventral penile skin rather than forming a distinct junction.[5][6][7]

Pathophysiology. PSW can be:[4][6][7][8]

  • Congenital — developmental anomaly from abnormal differentiation of the penoscrotal raphe; may occur in isolation or with hypospadias, chordee, or phimosis. Congenital webbed penis (CWP) sits in the spectrum of "concealed penis" disorders alongside buried penis (phallus concealed in prepubic fat) and trapped penis (phallus trapped by scar tissue after circumcision).
  • Acquired — may develop after circumcision (particularly aggressive ventral skin removal), after penile surgery, or as part of age-related scrotal laxity.[4][9]
  • Iatrogenic — post-circumcision trapped penis is a well-recognized entity where scar contracture creates a secondary web.[6][7]

II. Classification — El-Koutby Grading System​

The El-Koutby classification is the only published grading system for congenital webbed-penis severity, used in the Bagnara 2024 V-I reconfiguration study.[10]

  • Grade 1 — mild; scrotal skin extends slightly onto the proximal ventral shaft.
  • Grade 2 — moderate; scrotal skin extends to the mid-shaft.
  • Grade 3 — severe; scrotal skin extends to the distal shaft or coronal sulcus.

In the Bagnara series, 52% were Grade 3, 24% Grade 2, and 24% Grade 1 — most patients presenting for surgical correction have significant webbing.[10]

No standardized grading system exists for adult-onset or acquired PSW. Thomas & Navia 2021 propose that a "bothersome scrotum" hangs > 1–2 cm below the penile tip and may be associated with persistent webbing, but this is not a validated classification.[4]

III. Indications​

A. Cosmetic / aesthetic[1][4][5][11]​

  • Shortened visible penile length — the web obscures the ventral shaft, making the penis appear shorter than it actually is. Correction "unmasks" the ventral shaft and increases visible length without lengthening the corpora cavernosa.
  • Poor genital cosmesis — blurred penoscrotal junction.
  • Psychological distress — webbed penis and concealed penis are among the most common pathologies in adolescents seeking genital cosmetic surgery, with significant improvement in genital self-evaluation scores postoperatively. Overweight is associated with worse preoperative genital self-evaluation scores.[11]
  • Genital rejuvenation — increasingly sought as part of comprehensive male aesthetic genital surgery.[4]

B. Functional[2][5][11]​

  • Difficulty with condom application — the web interferes with proper placement and retention.
  • Ventral penile curvature during erection — tethering effect of the web.
  • Difficulty with intercourse — mechanical interference.
  • Hygiene difficulties — skin folds at the penoscrotal junction trap moisture and debris.

C. Adjunctive to other procedures[2][12][13][14]​

  • Penile-prosthesis implantation — most common context. Without web release, 84% of PSW patients complain of penile shortening after IPP; with web release, 84% report increased penile-length perception.[2]
  • Suspensory-ligament release — web correction complements SLR by addressing the ventral component of penile concealment while SLR addresses the dorsal / pubic component.[15]
  • Suprapubic lipectomy — combined with web correction for comprehensive genital aesthetic optimization (see Suprapubic Lipectomy).[15][16]

IV. Surgical Techniques​

A. Z-plasty at the penoscrotal junction​

The most widely recommended technique for cosmetic PSW correction, endorsed by the Thomas & Navia algorithm.[4]

Principle. Z-plasty transposes two triangular flaps to break up the linear web, redistribute tissue tension, lengthen the ventral penile skin, and reorient the central scar axis. A standard 60° Z-plasty lengthens the central limb by ~75% (theoretical √3 ≈ 73%; clinically reported 50–70%) and reorients the central axis by 90°.[17][24][25]

Geometry — flap angle vs lengthening and reorientation:[17][24][25]

Flap angleTheoretical lengtheningReorientation of central limb
30°25%45°
45°50%60°
60° (standard)75%90°
75°100%105°
90°120%120°

Angles of 60–75° balance planimetric elongation against tension distribution; ≤30° can paradoxically produce shortening in practice. Keeping the two peripheral limbs identical in length and angle is critical — mismatched flaps cause dog-ears and increase the risk of tip necrosis.[17][24][25]

Stepwise operative protocol.[4][17][18][19][26]

  1. Positioning / anesthesia. Supine; local ± sedation or general.
  2. Identify the web. Place the penis on gentle stretch to define the V-shaped tethering on the ventral shaft.
  3. Design. Central limb along the line of maximal contracture (ventral midline of the web); two peripheral limbs of equal length at 60° from each end of the central limb, oriented in opposite directions — one onto ventral penile shaft, one onto scrotal skin.
  4. Incise. Full-thickness through skin and superficial dartos along all three limbs; preserve urethra and corpus spongiosum.
  5. Elevate the two triangular flaps in the subdartos plane with adequate thickness to preserve perfusion.
  6. Release tethering dartos bands to fully unmask the ventral shaft.
  7. Transpose the two flaps — converts the vertical web into a transverse / oblique orientation, lengthening ventral skin and recreating the penoscrotal angle.
  8. Layered closure — dartos with absorbable braided suture; skin with 4-0 / 5-0 absorbable (chromic or polyglactin rapide).
  9. Dressing — light compression; scrotal support.

Variations.[18][26][27]

VariationDescriptionBest indication
Classic single Z-plastyStandard 60° Z at the penoscrotal junctionMild–moderate webbing
Multiple (serial) Z-plastiesSeries of smaller Z's linked along the webLonger webs needing distributed lengthening
Double-opposing Z-plastyTwo Z's in opposing directions sharing a central limbLimited adjacent tissue; provides depth
Five-flap Z-plastyModified design with five flaps for maximal lengtheningSevere contracture / webbing[27]

Outcomes — Álvarez Vega 2025 (n = 100 Z-plasty procedures).[18]

  • 98% primary skin-flap healing.
  • 1% suture-line separation (healed by secondary intention).
  • 1% hypertrophic scar (managed with local steroid).
  • 97% demonstrated stable corrections with minimal visible scarring at 1–2 yr follow-up.
  • Authors' verdict: Z-plasty is "highly effective, versatile, and safe" for penoscrotal abnormalities, "minimizing linear scarring and redistributing tissue tension."

Flap-necrosis risk factors — the most feared Z-plasty complication. Predictors from Qiu 2019 include high flap length-to-width ratio, thin pedicle, prolonged operative time, and a direction of blood perfusion counter to the flap design — addressed by maintaining adequate flap thickness, equal limb geometry, and tension-free transposition.[28]

B. V-Y advancement plasty​

Principle. V-shaped incision at the penoscrotal junction; flap is advanced distally and the wound is closed in a Y configuration. This effectively lowers the scrotal insertion point.[2][3]

Technique.[2][3]

  1. V-shaped incision designed at the penoscrotal junction with apex pointing toward the scrotum.
  2. V-flap elevated and advanced distally toward the penile tip.
  3. Donor site closed in a Y configuration.
  4. Advancement effectively lengthens the ventral penile skin and lowers the scrotal attachment.

Key concern — dehiscence risk. In Gupta 2019 (n = 103 scrotoplasty + IPP), V-Y plasty was independently associated with wound dehiscence — OR 4.9 (95% CI 1.2–8.6, p = 0.003) — vs other scrotoplasty techniques.[20]

C. Ventral phalloplasty ("check mark" incision) — Caso & Carrion 2008​

Specifically described for use during penile-prosthesis implantation.[3]

  1. The penoscrotal web is defined and marked.
  2. A "check mark" incision is made — an oblique incision at the penoscrotal junction with excision of a wedge of scrotal tissue.
  3. The incision provides excellent exposure for prosthesis cylinder, pump, and reservoir placement.
  4. Wound closure performed longitudinally — converting the oblique / transverse defect into a longitudinal closure.
  5. This effectively lowers the scrotal insertion and exposes more ventral penile shaft.

The authors described this as "a modified extension of surgeries described in the pediatric literature for webbed penis" that can be performed standalone or in concert with penile-prosthesis implantation.[3]

D. V-I penoscrotal reconfiguration — Bagnara 2024​

A newer technique specifically for congenital webbed penis.[10]

  1. V-shaped incision at the penoscrotal junction.
  2. Flap advanced and closed in a linear (I) configuration rather than a Y.
  3. Simplifies closure compared to V-Y plasty while achieving the same tissue redistribution.

Outcomes (n = 21).[10]

  • 0% postoperative complications.
  • 0% redo surgeries.
  • Satisfaction 4/5 in 81%, 3/5 in 19% (Likert).
  • The authors advocate correction in childhood to prevent psychological and sexual issues.

E. Transverse elliptical excision with vertical closure​

The simplest technique — a transverse ellipse of web tissue is excised and the wound is closed vertically.[5]

Chen 2012 (n = 12 adults, ages 14–23).[5]

  • Operation time 20 min to 1 hr.
  • Average bleeding minimal.
  • 100% satisfactory cosmetic outcomes.
  • 0% complications.

F. Scrotal-raphe approach (Borsellino 2007)[6]​

  • Incision along the scrotal raphe (midline of the scrotum).
  • Penile shaft exteriorized and the penoscrotal angle reconstructed through this scrotal incision.
  • No penile-skin incision, no flaps, no grafts, no Z-plasty required.
  • 0% recurrence for webbed penis (vs 5.3% for buried penis and 10% for trapped penis) at ≥ 1 yr follow-up.
  • Authors' verdict: this approach "simplified the complete exteriorization of the penile shaft, with easy bleeding control."

G. Concealed-penis repair with penoscrotal-angle reconstruction (Xu 2015)[19]​

For concealed penis (buried, webbed, or trapped subtypes). Pairs complete penile degloving with a longitudinal ventral incision at the penoscrotal junction (access + dead-space drainage) and tunica-albuginea-to-proximal-dartos fixation to reconstruct the penoscrotal angle and prevent retraction; the authors present the longitudinal incision and Z-plasty as interchangeable within the same framework. 41 patients — 100% correction, median +2.1 cm flaccid, 0% complications at 6 mo–2 yr. See the dedicated page: Longitudinal Incision + Penoscrotal-Angle Reconstruction (Xu).

V. Outcomes — Comparative Summary​

TechniqueStudynComplication rateDehiscenceSatisfactionKey advantage
Z-plastyÁlvarez Vega 2025[18]1002% (minor)1%97% stable correctionLowest complication rate; breaks up linear scar
Z-plasty (algorithm)Thomas & Navia 2021[4]————Recommended by only systematic review
V-Y plastyGupta 2019[20]103 (with IPP)14.6% dehiscenceOR 4.9 vs otherImproves length perceptionGood tissue advancement
V-I reconfigurationBagnara 2024[10]210%0%81% scored 4/5Simplest closure; no complications
Ventral phalloplasty ("check mark")Miranda-Sousa 2007[2]43 (with IPP)11.6% (minor)7.0%98% overall; 84% perceived length gainExcellent with IPP; adds only 12 min
Transverse excisionChen 2012[5]120%0%100%Simplest technique; shortest OR time
Scrotal-raphe approachBorsellino 2007[6]11 (webbed)0%0%Good (parent-rated)No penile-skin incision; 0% recurrence

VI. Penoscrotal-Web Correction Combined With Penile Prosthesis — The Strongest Evidence​

The most robust outcome data come from the penile-prosthesis literature, where ventral phalloplasty has become a standard adjunctive procedure.

Miranda-Sousa 2007 — landmark study (n = 90)[2]​

  • 43 patients underwent IPP + ventral phalloplasty (web release); 37 underwent IPP alone.
  • All patients had a high ventral scrotal insertion (penoscrotal web).
  • With web release — 84% reported increased penile length, 12% no change, 5% decreased length.
  • Without web release — 84% complained of penile shortening, only 3% reported increased length.
  • 98% overall satisfaction in the web-release group.
  • Complications — wound hematoma 4.7%, focal superficial dehiscence 7.0% (all minor).
  • Added operative time only ~ 12 minutes (mean 11.7 min).
  • Authors' verdict: "Release of penoscrotal web is a simple, safe, and reproducible procedure that can enhance patient perception of penile length and further improve satisfaction."

Abdelwahab 2025 RCT (n = 61)[14]​

  • Group A (n = 31) — IPP + SLR + Z-plasty + dorsal / ventral phalloplasty.
  • Group B (n = 30) — IPP alone.
  • Mean functional and visible penile lengths significantly greater in Group A (p < 0.05).

Aboul Fotouh El Gharably 2022 RCT (n = 61)[16]​

  • Group A (n = 31) — IPP + SLR + pubic lipectomy via penopubic Z-plasty.
  • Group B (n = 30) — conventional IPP.
  • Visible penile-length gain — +2.5 cm (IQR 1–3.5) in Group A vs 0 cm (IQR −1 to 0) in Group B (p < 0.001).

Mokhless 2010 (n = 14 adolescents post-circumcision)[15]​

  • Z-plasty of penoscrotal web + SLR + suprapubic-fat liposuction.
  • Functional penile length increased by +18–30 mm (mean 23 ± 4 mm) in the erect state at 3 mo.
  • 0% complications.
  • All patients had normally developed corpora cavernosa.

Spyropoulos 2005 (n = 11 combined augmentation phalloplasty)[21]​

  • Penile lengthening (suprapubic skin advancement + ligamentolysis) ± dermal-fat graft ± panniculectomy / lipectomy.
  • Mean length gain +1.6 cm; mean circumference gain +2.3–2.6 cm.
  • 91% reported significant (20–53%) improvement in sexual self-esteem and functioning.

VII. Complications​

Generally a low-morbidity procedure.[2][5][6][10][18][20]

ComplicationIncidenceRisk factorsManagement
Wound dehiscence1–14.6%Diabetes (OR 6.1); V-Y plasty (OR 4.9); combined with IPPConservative (mild); suture reinforcement (moderate); OR washout (major, rare)
Hematoma2–5%Anticoagulation; inadequate hemostasisObservation vs drainage
Superficial wound dehiscence7% (with IPP)V-Y technique; tension on closureWound care; usually heals secondarily
Hypertrophic scar1%Individual scarring tendencyLocal steroid injection
Penile edemaUp to 77% (with combined procedures)Extensive dissection; lymphatic disruptionSelf-limited; resolves in weeks
Glans numbness~ 10% (with combined procedures)Dorsal-nerve stretch during SLRUsually transient
Recurrence of webbing0% (webbed-penis series)Obesity (for buried penis)Revision surgery
Penile instability~ 10% (with SLR)Suspensory-ligament divisionPenile traction therapy; usually resolves

Key risk factors — Gupta 2019.[20]

  • Diabetes — strongest predictor of wound dehiscence (OR 6.1; 95% CI 1.5–25.0; p = 0.013).
  • V-Y plasty technique independently associated with dehiscence (OR 4.9; 95% CI 1.2–8.6; p = 0.003).
  • Age, Peyronie's disease, hypertension, smoking, and device manufacturer were not associated.
  • Authors recommend that diabetic patients be specifically counseled about increased wound-complication risk.

VIII. Psychological Impact and Patient Selection​

Adolescent genital dissatisfaction — Zampieri 2022 (n = 98)[11]​

  • Webbed penis and penile curvature were the most frequent pathologies in adolescents seeking genital cosmetic surgery.
  • Patients with concealed penis and webbed penis showed the best postoperative improvement in genital self-evaluation scores.
  • Overweight associated with worse preoperative scores.
  • Authors' verdict: "Cosmetic genital surgery should be considered even in male adolescents."

Adult genital self-image — Hustad 2022 (n = 3,503)[22]​

  • 33.8% of all individuals reported dissatisfaction with genital appearance.
  • 5.5% of males had severely low genital self-image (2 SD below mean).
  • 11.3% of males had considered cosmetic genital surgery.
  • Larger penis size predicted higher genital self-image, but avoidance / safety-seeking behaviors and openness toward surgery predicted lower self-image — psychological factors play a significant role beyond anatomy.

Long-term outcomes of concealed-penis repair — Herndon 2003[9]​

  • Surgery in toddlers — 100% improved appearance, 87% improved hygiene, 86% improved accessibility.
  • Surgery in adolescents — only 50% improved appearance, 50% improved hygiene, 75% improved accessibility.
  • Despite less favorable adolescent results, 100% of adolescent parents would still recommend surgery.
  • Suggests earlier correction produces better outcomes — supports the Bagnara recommendation for childhood correction of CWP.[10]

IX. Standalone Cosmetic Penoscrotal-Web Correction — Practical Considerations​

Patient selection.[4][5][22]

  • Patients with visible PSW causing cosmetic dissatisfaction, functional complaints (condom difficulty, ventral curvature), or psychological distress.
  • Distinguish webbed penis from buried penis (which requires more extensive surgery including escutcheonectomy) and from penile dysmorphic disorder (which may benefit from psychological intervention rather than surgery).
  • Mandatory psychological screening (BDDQ-AS / BDD-YBOCS) per SMSNA 2024.[23]
  • No standardized diagnostic criteria; clinical assessment is subjective.[4]

Preoperative counseling.[5]

  • Goals of surgery should be clearly defined: (1) expose the glans and coronal sulcus; (2) match penile-skin length dorsally and ventrally; (3) provide a normal penoscrotal junction.
  • Patients should understand that web correction increases visible penile length but does not increase actual corporal length.
  • Expected length gain is primarily perceptual — the ventral shaft that was previously hidden by the web becomes visible.

Anesthesia. Local anesthesia with sedation for standalone procedures, or general anesthesia when combined with other procedures.[5]

Operative time. 20 minutes to 1 hour for standalone web correction; adds approximately 12 minutes when combined with IPP.[2][5]

Postoperative care.

  • Supportive underwear for 2–4 weeks.
  • Activity restriction (no sexual activity) for 4–6 weeks.
  • Wound monitoring, particularly in diabetic patients.[20]

CPT coding​

  • CPT 55180 — scrotoplasty, complicated — appropriate for penoscrotal Z-plasty given the flap-transposition component.
  • When performed concurrently with penile-prosthesis implantation, code separately from the prosthesis-placement codes.[1][3]

X. Technique Selection Algorithm​

Based on Thomas & Navia 2021 and the available evidence.[4]

Penoscrotal webbing alone (no scrotomegaly).

→ Z-plasty at the penoscrotal junction — recommended as first-line by the only published management algorithm. Lowest complication rate (2%), breaks up linear scar, redistributes tissue tension, and produces durable results.[4][18]

Penoscrotal webbing + scrotomegaly.

→ Z-plasty at the penoscrotal junction + vertical midline scrotal-skin resection — addresses both components simultaneously. See Reduction Scrotoplasty for the skin-resection deep-dive.[4]

Combined with penile prosthesis.

→ Ventral phalloplasty ("check mark" incision or V-Y plasty) — provides excellent exposure for prosthesis placement while correcting the web. V-Y plasty carries higher dehiscence risk (OR 4.9), particularly in diabetic patients.[2][3][20]

→ Consider Z-plasty over V-Y plasty to reduce dehiscence risk, especially in diabetic patients.[20]

Congenital webbed penis (pediatric / adolescent).

→ V-I penoscrotal reconfiguration — simplest technique with 0% complication rate.[10]

→ Z-plasty — versatile, 98% primary healing, adaptable to severity.[18]

→ Scrotal-raphe approach — avoids penile-skin incision entirely; 0% recurrence for webbed penis.[6]

XI. Evidence Summary​

FeatureCurrent evidence
Level of evidenceLevel IV (case series, technique descriptions); 2 RCTs in IPP context
Systematic reviews2 — Thomas & Navia 2021; Schifano 2022
RCTs2 — Aboul Fotouh El Gharably 2022 (n = 61); Abdelwahab 2025 (n = 61) — both in IPP context
Largest standalone cosmetic seriesÁlvarez Vega 2025 (n = 100 Z-plasties, pediatric)
Largest IPP + web-release seriesGupta 2019 (n = 103 scrotoplasties)
Validated outcome measuresNone specific to cosmetic web correction
Standardized classificationEl-Koutby (congenital only); no adult classification
Position statementsSMSNA 2024 considers all cosmetic penile-enhancement procedures investigational

XII. Clinical Summary​

Penoscrotal-web correction is a technically straightforward, low-morbidity procedure that produces high patient satisfaction and meaningful improvement in perceived penile length and genital cosmesis. The strongest evidence comes from the penile-prosthesis literature, where ventral phalloplasty dramatically reverses the perception of penile shortening (from 84% complaining of shortening without web release to 84% reporting increased length with web release).[2] For standalone cosmetic correction, Z-plasty at the penoscrotal junction is recommended as first-line by the Thomas & Navia algorithm, with 98% primary healing and minimal scarring.[4][18] V-Y plasty should be used cautiously, particularly in diabetic patients, given the nearly 5-fold increased dehiscence risk.[20] The V-I reconfiguration offers the simplest closure with 0% complications but has been studied only in the pediatric population.[10] The evidence base remains limited — dominated by case series and technique descriptions — and no validated outcome measures, standardized adult classification systems, or large prospective standalone cosmetic-correction studies exist.[1][4]

See Also​

References​

1. Schifano N, Castiglione F, Cakir OO, Montorsi F, Garaffa G. Reconstructive surgery of the scrotum: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(4):359–368. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00468-x

2. Miranda-Sousa A, Keating M, Moreira S, Baker M, Carrion R. Concomitant ventral phalloplasty during penile-implant surgery: a novel procedure that optimizes patient satisfaction and their perception of phallic length after penile-implant surgery. J Sex Med. 2007;4(5):1494–1499. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00551.x

3. Caso J, Keating M, Miranda-Sousa A, Carrion R. Ventral phalloplasty. Asian J Androl. 2008;10(1):155–157. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00365.x

4. Thomas C, Navia A. Aesthetic scrotoplasty: systematic review and a proposed treatment algorithm for the management of bothersome scrotum in adults. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2021;45(2):769–776. doi:10.1007/s00266-020-01998-3

5. Chen YB, Ding XF, Luo C, et al. A new plastic surgical technique for adult congenital webbed penis. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2012;13(9):757–760. doi:10.1631/jzus.B1200117

6. Borsellino A, Spagnoli A, Vallasciani S, Martini L, Ferro F. Surgical approach to concealed penis: technical refinements and outcome. Urology. 2007;69(6):1195–1198. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.065

7. Bergeson PS, Hopkin RJ, Bailey RB, McGill LC, Piatt JP. The inconspicuous penis. Pediatrics. 1993;92(6):794–799.

8. Fahmy MA, El Shennawy AA, Edress AM. Spectrum of penoscrotal positional anomalies in children. Int J Surg. 2014;12(9):983–988. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.001

9. Herndon CD, Casale AJ, Cain MP, Rink RC. Long-term outcome of the surgical treatment of concealed penis. J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 2):1695–1697. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000083911.59937.c6

10. Bagnara V, Donà A, Berrettini A, et al. The "V-I penoscrotal reconfiguration": a simple technique for the surgical treatment of congenital webbed penis. Int J Urol. 2024;31(8):886–890. doi:10.1111/iju.15476

11. Zampieri N, Dando I, Camoglio FS. Adolescent male genitalia dissatisfaction: a surgical perspective. Asian J Androl. 2022;24(2):176–179. doi:10.4103/aja.aja_60_21

12. Whelan P, Levine LA. Additional procedures performed at time of penile-prosthesis implantation: a review of current literature. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(1):89–98. doi:10.1038/s41443-019-0118-y

13. Lo Re M, Alonso Isa M, Garcia Rojo E, et al. Advancements in penile-lengthening techniques concurrent with penile-prosthesis placement: a narrative review. Asian J Androl. 2025. doi:10.4103/aja202512

14. Abdelwahab M, AbdelKader A, Abdelrassoul M, et al. Maximizing postoperative satisfaction in penile-prosthesis surgery: the predictive power of preoperative length and its role in tailoring enhancement procedures. J Sex Med. 2025. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf169

15. Mokhless IA, Abdeldaeim HM, Rahman A, Zahran M, Safwat A. Penile advancement and lengthening for the management of post-circumcision traumatic short penis in adolescents. Urology. 2010;76(6):1483–1487. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.018

16. Aboul Fotouh El Gharably M, Ghoneima W, Lotfi MA, et al. The efficacy of suspensory-ligament release and pubic lipectomy via penopubic Z-plasty during penile-prosthesis implantation in improving sexual satisfaction: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Sex Med. 2022;19(5):852–863. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.02.024

17. Salam GA, Amin JP. The basic Z-plasty. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(11):2329–2332.

18. Álvarez Vega DR, Mendelson JL, Gitlin JS, Joshi P, Hanna MK. Optimizing pediatric genital reconstruction: the role of Z-plasty in enhancing aesthetic and functional outcomes. Urology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.06.011

19. Xu JG, Lv C, Wang YC, Zhu J, Xue CY. Management of concealed penis with modified penoplasty. Urology. 2015;85(3):698–702. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.06.044

20. Gupta NK, Sulaver R, Welliver C, et al. Scrotoplasty at time of penile implant is at high risk for dehiscence in diabetics. J Sex Med. 2019;16(4):602–608. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.02.001

21. Spyropoulos E, Christoforidis C, Borousas D, et al. Augmentation phalloplasty surgery for penile dysmorphophobia in young adults: considerations regarding patient selection, outcome evaluation and techniques applied. Eur Urol. 2005;48(1):121–127. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.021

22. Hustad IB, Malmqvist K, Ivanova E, Rück C, Enander J. Does size matter? Genital self-image, genital size, pornography use and openness toward cosmetic genital surgery in 3503 Swedish men and women. J Sex Med. 2022;19(9):1378–1386. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2022.06.006

23. Trost L, Watter DN, Carrier S, et al. Cosmetic penile-enhancement procedures: an SMSNA position statement. J Sex Med. 2024;21(6):573–578. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae045

24. Roggendorf E. Planimetric elongation of skin by Z-plasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69(2):306–316. doi:10.1097/00006534-198202000-00021

25. Rohrich RJ, Zbar RI. A simplified algorithm for the use of Z-plasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103(5):1513–1517.

26. Hundeshagen G, Zapata-Sirvent R, Goverman J, Branski LK. Tissue rearrangements: the power of the Z-plasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2017;44(4):805–812. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2017.05.011

27. Chen B, Song H. The modification of five-flap Z-plasty for web contracture. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2015;39(6):922–926. doi:10.1007/s00266-015-0548-y

28. Qiu D, Wang X, Wang X, et al. Risk factors for necrosis of skin flap-like wounds after ED debridement and suture. Am J Emerg Med. 2019;37(5):828–831. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.07.049