Skip to main content

Giant Penoscrotal Lymphedema (Genital Elephantiasis)

Giant penoscrotal lymphedema (GPL) is end-stage (ISL Stage III) lymphedema of the penis and / or scrotum characterized by massive, irreversible tissue enlargement with fibrosis, papillomatosis, and skin changes that render the genitalia functionally useless.[1][2] No universally accepted size threshold defines "giant," but the term is applied when the mass causes severe functional impairment — inability to ambulate, void while standing, perform hygiene, or have intercourse — and resected tissue typically weighs 500 g to > 20 kg (up to 61 kg / 134 lbs reported).[3][4] Synonyms: scrotal elephantiasis, male genital elephantiasis, penoscrotal elephantiasis.

For the broader clinical-conditions framework see Genital Lymphedema. For surgical reconstruction technique see Scrotal Reconstruction.

Epidemiology​

  • Filariasis is the most common cause worldwide — 120 million infected, 40 million with clinical disease; scrotal elephantiasis / hydrocele are hallmarks in sub-Saharan Africa, South / Southeast Asia, and Pacific Islands. Community prevalence 1.3–7.8% in endemic regions.[5][6]
  • Developed world — morbid obesity (MLL), primary / idiopathic lymphedema, cancer treatment (PLND ± RT).[1][7][8]
  • In the largest integrated European series (Torio-Padron, n = 51) — 84% primary, 16% secondary; combined penoscrotal involvement in 53%.[7]
  • Male predominance; mean age at presentation 35–48 yr; median symptom duration before surgery 11.5 yr (Salako sub-Saharan series).[2][4][8]

Etiology​

Primary (84% in Torio-Padron)Secondary
Developmental lymphatic anomalies — congenital / praecox / tarda; syndromic FOXC2, GATA2, Meige.[7]Filariasis (W. bancrofti 90%, B. malayi); MLL of obesity (BMI > 56 confers 213× MLL risk); cancer treatment (PLND ± RT); LGV / donovanosis / TB; Crohn's ano-genital granulomatosis; HS; trauma / non-oncologic surgery; idiopathic acquired.[1][5][8][9][12][14][15][16][17]

Pathophysiology​

Lymphatic obstruction → protein-rich interstitial fluid → chronic stasis → inflammation (Th1/Th17 in filarial disease) + fibrosis + adipose hypertrophy + recurrent ADLA episodes in a vicious cycle → end-stage elephantiasis with papillomatosis, verrucous skin, lymph vesicles, lymphorrhea.[5][11]

  • Filarial — two-step process: parasite + innate-immune damage → adaptive-immune propagation; the endosymbiont Wolbachia drives much of the inflammation.[5][11]
  • Obesity / MLL — dartos hyperplasia / hypertrophy with microvascular proliferation at the smooth-muscle–stroma interface — features unique to genital MLL.[12][13]

Histopathology​

Common across etiologies — stromal fibrosis and edema, lymphangiectasia, perivascular chronic inflammation, multinucleated stromal cells.[12][13]

Genital MLL (Lee Johns Hopkins n = 6) — dartos hyperplasia / hypertrophy in all six; capillary neoangiogenesis at the smooth-muscle–stroma interface in 3; entrapped fat only a minor feature (unlike non-genital MLL); lesions 4–55 cm; all patients obese.[13]

Filarial — adult worms encapsulated within inflammatory granulomas in lymphatic vessels; lymphatic-wall thickening and dilatation.[5][11]

Crohn's / ano-genital granulomatosis — non-caseating granulomas (50%) and intralymphatic granulomas (14%).[15]

Malignant transformation — Stewart-Treves lymphangiosarcoma in long-standing disease; none reported in the Lee MLL series.[13]

Classification Systems​

SystemDetail
McDougal 2003Congenital vs acquired; self-limited (conservative) vs chronic with pathological tissue changes (surgical). Most chronic forms require excisional surgery with STSG.[10]
Ehrl 2023Treatment-oriented for giant penoscrotal lymphedema — determines whether resection alone vs resection + VLNT is indicated. 8/9 patients were end-stage; scrotal VLNT improved lymphatic transport.[1]
ISLGiant GPL = Stage III elephantiasis.
Genital Lymphedema Score (GLS, Yamamoto)0–9; giant GPL typically scores 6–9.
Lu MRL 2016Inguinal lymph-node dysfunction mild → CDP; moderate → microsurgery; severe → excision. At 3–5 yr follow-up, severe-dysfunction patients undergoing excision had excellent cosmesis and no recurrence.[18]

Clinical Presentation​

FeatureDetail
Progressive massive genital swellingResected weights up to 61 kg / 134 lbs.[4]
Buried penisPenis engulfed within the lymphedematous mass; loss of standing voiding and sexual function. Risk factors: elevated BMI, chronic scrotal lymphedema, HS, chronic inflammation.[16]
Impaired ambulationMass hangs between thighs, causing gait disturbance and skin maceration.
Hygiene failureSkin folds harbor moisture and bacteria.
LymphorrheaLymph oozes from skin vesicles.
Recurrent cellulitis24% in pediatric GL series.[19]
Sexual dysfunctionComplete inability to perform intercourse.
Psychosocial devastationProfound impact on self-image, relationships, employment, mental health.

Exam. Massive non-pitting firm penoscrotal mass; peau d'orange; papillomatosis / verrucous overgrowth; lymph vesicles; positive Stemmer; buried penis; concurrent LE lymphedema (76% pediatric);[19] associated hydrocele (43% in Torio-Padron).[7]

Differential Diagnosis​

DiagnosisDistinguishing feature
Inguinal herniaReducible, Valsalva impulse, bowel sounds.[25]
Giant hydroceleTransilluminates; ultrasound fluid.[20]
Scrotal lipoma / liposarcomaFat on imaging; lipoma is the most common extratesticular neoplasm.[21][22]
Spermatic-cord sarcomaRMS (pediatric), liposarcoma / leiomyosarcoma (adult); solid, non-transilluminating; MRI for characterization.[21][23]
LymphomaFirm, tender; systemic features.[25]
Fibrous pseudotumorParatesticular mass; T2-hypointense on MRI.[21]
Fournier's gangreneAcute pain, crepitus, systemic toxicity.
Angiokeratoma / lymphangiomaVascular malformation.

In adult patients sarcomas must be considered for all solid scrotal tumors; biopsy when diagnosis is uncertain.[23]

Imaging​

ModalityRole
UltrasoundFirst-line per ACR Appropriateness Criteria; assesses testicular integrity, hydrocele, hernia, Doppler.[20][27]
ICG lymphographyLinear → splash → stardust → diffuse progression. Klein 2026 (n = 15 AABP) — significant lymphatic congestion in all patients with dermal backflow; posterior scrotum drainage commonly preserved, validating posterior scrotal flap design.[28] Differentiates type 1 (leg-to-genital) vs type 2 (non-leg source) flow.[26]
MR lymphangiography (MRL)Lu 2016 — abnormal superficial + deep lymphatics with mild / moderate / severe inguinal-node dysfunction directing CDP vs microsurgery vs excision; excellent results at 3–5 yr with appropriately matched surgery.[18][29][30]
LymphoscintigraphyTraditional gold standard; falling out of favor vs ICG / MRL.[26][31]
CT / MRIFor very large masses to exclude malignancy and plan surgery.[27]

Conservative Management​

Insufficient as monotherapy for giant GPL but critical for perioperative optimization.

  • CDT poorly adapted to genital anatomy — creative compression / hip-spica / panty-girdle / scrotal supports.[14]
  • Perioperative CDP is the cornerstone of Torio-Padron's integrated approach — 6% complication rate in 51 patients.[7]
  • Underlying-cause therapy — antifilarials (DEC / ivermectin / albendazole); immunomodulators for Crohn's; weight loss / bariatric surgery for obesity-induced MLL.[4][8][15][32]

McDougal 2003 — chronic disease with pathological tissue changes requires surgery.[10]

Surgical Management — Excisional / Debulking​

Modified Charles Procedure (excision + STSG)​

Workhorse for resource-limited settings.[10][32][33][34]

Technique. Complete excision to tunica vaginalis (scrotum) and Buck's fascia (penis); preserve and reposition testes / cords; midline scrotoplasty (raphe simulation); zigzag ventral STSG suture line on penis to prevent circumferential contracture; preserve inner prepucial skin for distal shaft if healthy.

SeriesnOutcomes
Modolin 2006[33]17Symptom regression; 1 recurrence (post-RT).
Singh 2011[32]48 filarialGroin infection 25%; 0% recurrence; all satisfactory.
Salako 2018[2]11Hematoma 27.3%, SSI 18.2%, recurrence 9.1%.
Morey 1997[34]9Single-stage; excellent cosmesis.
Alwaal 2015 lymphedema subset[38]13> 90% graft take; maintained erection and voiding.

Excision + primary closure (Torio-Padron integrated)​

n = 51 with perioperative CDP — 6% complications requiring revision; no flaps / grafts needed; 43% concurrent hydrocoelectomy; QOL improved on Glasgow Benefit Inventory.[7]

Excision + flap reconstruction​

Guiotto SR — 54.2% complication rate (highest), likely reflecting disease severity.[39] Champaneria 2013 posterior fasciocutaneous scrotal flap + penile graft + panniculectomy.[12] Machol 2014 lateral scrotal flaps ± mid-raphe Z-plasty in 4 MLL patients — 50% recurrence without weight loss.[8]

Buried penis with concurrent scrotal lymphedema​

  • Corder 2023 (n = 7, mean BMI 48, mean weight 344 lbs) — concurrent scrotoplasty + infraumbilical panniculectomy; native glans skin salvageable in all but one; shaft STSG or adjacent tissue transfer; 88% wound dehiscence rate.[16]
  • Klein 2026 (n = 15 AABP) — ICG showed lymphatic congestion in all; posterior scrotum drainage preserved, validating posterior scrotal flap reconstruction.[28]

MLL excision in obesity​

Wisenbaugh n = 11 (mean BMI 60, mean resected 21 kg, max 61 kg); QOL 1.3 → 7.7; most patients gained 5.2 kg postoperatively — must accompany excision with a weight-loss plan.[4]

Surgical Management — Physiologic Lymphatic Reconstruction​

Excision + VLNT (Ehrl 2023) — the curative algorithm[1]​

  • 9 patients (8 end-stage giant); penoscrotal resection ± VLNT from the lateral thoracic region (5/9) into the groin or scrotum.
  • Treatment-oriented classification system developed.
  • Median follow-up 49.0 mo; 0% recurrence.
  • Scrotal VLNT significantly improved lymphatic transport vs resection alone.

Radical Reduction and Reconstruction (3R) — Yamamoto 2022[3]​

  • n = 7 male genital elephantiasis (4 scrotal, 3 penoscrotal); mean resected 1,511 g (609–2304 g).
  • Reconstruction with pedicled SCIP lymphatic flap transfer for scrotum + SCIP pure-skin-perforator flap for penis.
  • 0% complications, 0% recurrence at mean 22.7 mo.
  • GLS 6.7 → 0.3 (p < 0.05).

Complete Functional Lymphatic-System Pedicled Transfer — Abdelfattah 2023[40]​

  • n = 26 advanced scrotal / penoscrotal lymphedema.
  • SCIP lymphatic flap for partial (n = 11) or total (n = 15) scrotal reconstruction + penile skin (n = 11).
  • 100% flap survival; cellulitis rates dramatically reduced (p < 0.001).
  • GLS 6.2 → 0.05 at mean 44.9 mo.

CHASCIP — Combined Charles + Lymphatic SCIP flap — Ciudad 2025[41]​

  • n = 8 ISL Stage III; bilateral pedicled lymphatic SCIP flaps + STSG.
  • Mean resected 1,772.7 g; OR 160 min; EBL 200.6 mL.
  • 25% complications (1 seroma / dehiscence, 1 partial graft loss).
  • 0% recurrence at 34 mo; sexual dysfunction 87.5% → 0%.

Comparative Outcomes — All Surgical Approaches​

ProcedurenComplication rateRecurrenceGLS improvementCompression requiredFollow-up
Modified Charles + STSG98 (combined)10–27%0–9%Not measuredUsually yes6 mo – 10 yr[2][32][33]
Excision + primary closure (Torio-Padron)516%LowGBI improvedReduced1998–2013[7]
Excision + flap59 (SR)54.2%VariableVariableUsually yesVariable[39]
Excision + VLNT (Ehrl)9Low0%Improved transportReduced49 mo[1]
3R SCIP-LFT (Yamamoto)70%0%6.7 → 0.3None22.7 mo[3]
SCIP-lymphatic flap (Abdelfattah)26Low0%6.2 → 0.05Minimal44.9 mo[40]
CHASCIP (Ciudad)825%0%6.6 → 0.6Minimal34 mo[41]
MLL excision in obesity (Wisenbaugh)11Wound complications commonVariableQOL 1.3 → 7.7Yes26 mo[4]

Penile Skin Reconstruction in Giant GPL​

OptionDetail
STSGStandard; harvested from thigh 0.012–0.015 inch; applied to Buck's fascia; zigzag ventral suture line; > 90% take in Alwaal n = 54; preserve healthy inner prepucial skin for distal shaft.[32][33][38]
SCIP pure-skin-perforator flapFor 3R / CHASCIP penile coverage with lymphatic-rich tissue.[3][41]
Integra + delayed STSGTwo-stage: ADM + NPWT × 3 wk → unmeshed STSG; adequate extensibility during erection.[48]
FTSGFrom the hypogastric region — used in CHASCIP for penile coverage.[41]

Synthesized Treatment Algorithm​

  1. Preoperative assessment. ISL / GLS staging; ICG lymphography (note posterior-scrotum drainage for flap planning); MRL (inguinal-node dysfunction grade); exclude malignancy with biopsy if uncertain; optimize comorbidities (weight loss, infection control, antifilarials).
  2. Perioperative CDP. Inpatient before and after surgery — reduces complication rate to 6%.[7]
  3. Surgical approach (driven by available expertise):
    • If lymphatic-reconstruction expertise available — 3R or CHASCIP SCIP-LFT (emerging gold standard, 0% recurrence, no compression required) or excision + VLNT (Ehrl algorithm) when SCIP-LFT not feasible.[1][3][40][41]
    • If not available — modified Charles procedure (radical excision + STSG) or excision + primary closure when perioperative CDP achieves sufficient volume reduction.[7][32][33]
  4. Postoperative. Wound care, compression (unless SCIP-LFT), cellulitis prophylaxis, structured weight-management plan (Wisenbaugh — most regain weight without one), long-term recurrence surveillance.[4]

Special Considerations​

  • Obesity-related GPL. Weight loss is fundamental; surgical excision alone has 50% recurrence; bariatric surgery should be considered — the BLOOM technique combines sleeve gastrectomy + VLNT in one operation.[4][8]
  • Filarial GPL. All patients should complete antifilarial-drug courses prior to surgery.[32]
  • Pediatric GPL. 76% have concurrent lower-extremity lymphedema; 24% recurrent cellulitis at presentation.[19]

See Also​

References​

1. Ehrl D, Heidekrueger PI, Giunta RE, Wachtel N. Giant penoscrotal lymphedema — what to do? Presentation of a curative treatment algorithm. J Clin Med. 2023;12(24):7586. doi:10.3390/jcm12247586

2. Salako AA, Olabanji JK, Oladele AO, et al. Surgical reconstruction of giant penoscrotal lymphedema in sub-Saharan Africa. Urology. 2018;112:181–185. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.064

3. Yamamoto T, Daniel BW, Rodriguez JR, et al. Radical reduction and reconstruction for male genital elephantiasis: SCIP lymphatic flap transfer after elephantiasis tissue resection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(2):870–880. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.011

4. Wisenbaugh E, Moskowitz D, Gelman J. Reconstruction of massive localized lymphedema of the scrotum. Urology. 2018;112:176–180. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.063

5. Taylor MJ, Hoerauf A, Bockarie M. Lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis. Lancet. 2010;376(9747):1175–1185. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60586-7

6. Hopkins DR. Disease eradication. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):54–63. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1200391

7. Torio-Padron N, Stark GB, Földi E, Simunovic F. Treatment of male genital lymphedema: an integrated concept. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(2):262–268. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.003

8. Machol JA 4th, Langenstroer P, Sanger JR. Surgical reduction of scrotal MLL in obesity. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(12):1719–1725. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.07.031

9. Gupta S, Ajith C, Kanwar AJ, et al. Genital elephantiasis and sexually transmitted infections — revisited. Int J STD AIDS. 2006;17(3):157–165. doi:10.1258/095646206775809150

10. McDougal WS. Lymphedema of the external genitalia. J Urol. 2003;170(3):711–716. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000067625.45000.9e

11. Babu S, Nutman TB. Immunopathogenesis of lymphatic filarial disease. Semin Immunopathol. 2012;34(6):847–861. doi:10.1007/s00281-012-0346-4

12. Champaneria MC, Workman A, Kao H, Ray AO, Hill M. Reconstruction of MLL of the scrotum with a novel fasciocutaneous flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(2):281–286. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2012.06.024

13. Lee S, Han JS, Ross HM, Epstein JI. Massive localized lymphedema of the male external genitalia: a clinicopathologic study of 6 cases. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(2):277–281. doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2012.05.023

14. Borman P, Noble-Jones R, Thomas MJ, Bragg T, Gordon K. Conservative and integrated management of genital lymphoedema. J Wound Care. 2021;30(Sup12a):6–17. doi:10.12968/jowc.2021.30.Sup12a.6

15. Alexakis C, Gordon K, Mellor R, et al. Ano-genital granulomatosis and Crohn's disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(4):454–459. doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw173

16. Corder B, Googe B, Velazquez A, Sullivan J, Arnold P. Surgical management of acquired buried penis and scrotal lymphedema. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;85:18–23. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.021

17. Fujimoto N, Honda S, Nakanishi G, Tachibana T, Tanaka T. Acquired idiopathic penile lymphedema. J Dermatol. 2014;41(2):157–159. doi:10.1111/1346-8138.12357

18. Lu Q, Jiang Z, Zhao Z, et al. Assessment of the lymphatic system of the genitalia using MR lymphography. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(21):e3755. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000003755

19. Schook CC, Kulungowski AM, Greene AK, Fishman SJ. Male genital lymphedema: clinical features and management in 25 pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49(11):1647–1651. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.05.031

20. Gabriel H, Hammond NA, Marquez RA, et al. Gamut of extratesticular scrotal masses. Radiographics. 2023;43(4):e220113. doi:10.1148/rg.220113

21. Wolfman DJ, Marko J, Gould CF, Sesterhenn IA, Lattin GE. Mesenchymal extratesticular tumors and tumorlike conditions. Radiographics. 2015;35(7):1943–1954. doi:10.1148/rg.2015150179

22. Woodward PJ, Schwab CM, Sesterhenn IA. Extratesticular scrotal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2003;23(1):215–240. doi:10.1148/rg.231025133

23. Akbar SA, Sayyed TA, Jafri SZ, Hasteh F, Neill JS. Multimodality imaging of paratesticular neoplasms and their rare mimics. Radiographics. 2003;23(6):1461–1476. doi:10.1148/rg.236025174

25. Shakil A, Aparicio K, Barta E, Munez K. Inguinal hernias: diagnosis and management. Am Fam Physician. 2020;102(8):487–492.

26. Kadle RL, Chao AH. Imaging modalities in lymphatic surgery. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2025. doi:10.1080/17434440.2025.2554760

27. Khatri G, Bhosale PR, Robbins JB, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria — newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. J Am Coll Radiol. 2022;19(5S):S114–S120. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2022.02.018

28. Klein RD, Sarrami SM, Mazarei M, et al. ICG-directed scrotal flap design for adult-acquired buried penis repair. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2026;115:74–80. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2026.02.011

29. Mitsumori LM, McDonald ES, Wilson GJ, et al. MR lymphangiography: how I do it. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(6):1465–1477. doi:10.1002/jmri.24887

30. Negm AS, Collins JD, Bendel EC, et al. MR lymphangiography in lymphatic disorders. Radiographics. 2024;44(2):e230075. doi:10.1148/rg.230075

31. Subramanyam P, Palaniswamy SS. Lymphoscintigraphy in unilateral lower-limb and scrotal lymphedema caused by filariasis. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2012;87(6):963–964. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2012.12-0422

32. Singh V, Sinha RJ, Sankhwar SN, Kumar V. Reconstructive surgery for penoscrotal filarial lymphedema. Urology. 2011;77(5):1228–1231. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.10.026

33. Modolin M, Mitre AI, da Silva JC, et al. Surgical treatment of lymphedema of the penis and scrotum. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2006;61(4):289–294. doi:10.1590/s1807-59322006000400003

34. Morey AF, Meng MV, McAninch JW. Skin-graft reconstruction of chronic genital lymphedema. Urology. 1997;50(3):423–426. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00259-8

38. Alwaal A, McAninch JW, Harris CR, Breyer BN. Utilities of split-thickness skin grafting for male genital reconstruction. Urology. 2015;86(4):835–839. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.005

39. Guiotto M, Bramhall RJ, Campisi C, Raffoul W, di Summa PG. A SR of outcomes after genital lymphedema surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;83(6):e85–e91. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000001875

40. Abdelfattah U, Elbanoby T, Hamza F, et al. Treatment of advanced male genital lymphedema with a complete functional lymphatic-system pedicled transfer. Urology. 2023;175:190–195. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.02.006

41. Ciudad P, Escandón JM, Escandón L, Mayer HF, Manrique OJ. Surgical management of genital lymphedema using CHASCIP. Microsurgery. 2025;45(5):e70075. doi:10.1002/micr.70075

48. Liguori G, Papa G, Boltri M, et al. Reconstruction of penile skin loss using a combined therapy of NPWT, dermal regeneration template, and STSG. Int J Impot Res. 2020;33(8):854–859. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-00343-1