Skip to main content

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

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 its first formal position statement 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 men with objective micropenis from the much larger group with normal anatomy and dysmorphic distress (SPS / PDD), and to lead with multidisciplinary assessment before any procedural intervention.

Part I: Definitions and clinical context​

Normal penile dimensions​

The landmark systematic review (Veale et al., 2015; n = 15,521 men) established nomograms for penile size measured by health professionals:[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​

In adults, micropenis is defined as a stretched penile length <7.5 cm (or >2.5 SD below the mean for age).[3] In neonates, the threshold is a stretched length <2.5 cm.[4][5]

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; among men seeking penile augmentation, 11–14% meet diagnostic criteria for BDD on clinical interview.[10][8]

Part II: Psychological assessment — a critical first step​

Multiple expert reviews and the SMSNA emphasize that a multidisciplinary preoperative assessment including psychiatric / psychological evaluation is essential before any intervention.[7]

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

  • The most common motivation was "improve self-confidence" — 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.
  • Patients with BDD should not be offered surgical intervention and should be referred for psychiatric / psychological counseling, as surgery rarely resolves their distress.[7][9]

After non-surgical girth augmentation, Sharp et al. (2023) found that despite an average girth increase of 3.29 cm, men still perceived their penile dimensions as less than ideal — though the perceived discrepancy was smaller. 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.
  • Evidence supports modest length gains of 1–3 cm with 4–6 months of daily use (4–8 hours / day).
  • 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.
  • PTT represents the only evidence-based non-invasive technique for penile elongation.[13]

An RCT of RestoreX post-prostatectomy (Toussi et al., 2021; n = 82) demonstrated a +1.6 cm length gain vs. +0.3 cm in controls (p<0.001).[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]

Part IV: Injectable therapies for girth enhancement​

A. Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers​

HA injection is the most commonly studied and best-tolerated injectable for penile girth augmentation.[18][19]

  • Technique — HA is injected into the subcutaneous plane (between dartos fascia and Buck's fascia) using a cannula, typically 20–40 mL per session.
  • Efficacy — the only multicenter RCT (Yang et al., 2019; n = 72) compared HA vs. polylactic acid (PLA) fillers and found both achieved significant girth increases lasting ≥48 weeks (mean increase 16.95 mm for HA, 13.49 mm for PLA; p<0.05).[20]
  • Satisfaction — Boiko et al. (2023; n = 132) reported mean girth enlargement of 1.7 cm for midshaft and 1.5 cm for glans, with significant improvements in sexual-relationship satisfaction, confidence, and self-esteem.[21]
  • Limitations — HA is resorbable (effects diminish over 12–24 months), requiring repeat injections; long-term follow-up data are limited.[6][19]

SMSNA position — injectable soft-tissue fillers "may be considered" for penile girth enhancement, but patients should be counseled about the temporary nature of results and the need for repeat treatments.[1]

B. Polylactic acid (PLA) fillers​

PLA stimulates collagen production and may provide longer-lasting results than HA. The Yang et al. RCT showed comparable efficacy and safety to HA at 48 weeks.[20]

C. Autologous fat injection​

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

  • Advantages — autologous material; no foreign-body reaction.
  • Disadvantages — unpredictable fat resorption (30–70%), irregular contour, nodule formation, calcification.
  • 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 experience (n = 35) — silicone (45.7%) and liquid paraffin (22.9%) were the most common substances; 91.4% required surgery, with 51% needing multiple procedures.[24]
  • A systematic review of 68 studies — 78.8% of patients with foreign-body injections required surgical treatment, including excision with skin grafts (85.1%), flaps (12.3%), and even penile amputation (n = 2).[24]
  • Complications include pain, erosion, inflammation, nodules, skin ulcers, necrosis, penile deformity, gangrene, and death.[6]
Illicit injectables

Silicone, paraffin, and mineral-oil injections cause sclerosing lipogranuloma with disabling sequelae. Up to 91% of these patients require surgical correction, often with skin grafts or flaps.[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 — highly variable. 1.3 cm average in one series (range −1 to +3 cm); 2–4 cm in another; cadaveric study showed mean gain of 26.4 mm (range 4–60 mm).[25][22][26]
  • Predictors — shorter pre-ligamentolysis length correlates with greater relative gain (r = −0.601; p = 0.014).[26]
  • Satisfaction — historically low: only 35% overall satisfaction in one series, and 27% in patients with PDD.[25]
  • Key limitation — gains are primarily in the flaccid state; erect-length gains are more modest. Erection angle may be altered (loss of upward angulation).

Dead-space management. Deskoulidi and Caminer (2023) described using distally based fat flaps advanced into the dead space created by ligament division, combined with fat injection for girth, achieving 2–4 cm flaccid-length gain in 75 patients with minimal complications.[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.[27]

SMSNA position — suspensory-ligament division "may be considered" in select patients but should be performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate counseling regarding realistic expectations.[1]

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 and are generally reserved for specific pathologic indications (severe Peyronie's, post-traumatic shortening).[28][1]

SMSNA position — sliding / slicing techniques "should be considered investigational" and performed only in the context of clinical research.[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 (Sertkaya et al., 2025; n = 456) combines bovine-pericardial grafts with autologous plasma gel, achieving a 43.1% girth increase (4.51 cm) and 20.8% length increase at 1 year. Complications: seroma 6.1%, wound dehiscence 2.3%, infection 2.7%, hematoma 1.4%.[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; n = 27) described turning a scrotal dartos flap into the plane between superficial penile fascia and Buck's fascia, achieving a 50.8% girth improvement (3.59 cm) with only minor adverse events.[30]

C. Silicone sleeve implants — Penuma® and Himplant​

The Penuma is the only FDA-cleared (510(k)) silicone penile implant for cosmetic enhancement of the flaccid penis.[31][32] The Himplant is a similar contemporary silicone-sleeve product marketed for the same indication; both share the same technical category and complication profile.

ParameterElist et al. (2018; n = 400)Siegal et al. (2023; n = 49)
Girth increase56.7% (8.5 → 13.4 cm midshaft)Not separately reported
Length increaseNot primary endpoint52% (8.1 → 12.3 cm flaccid)
Satisfaction81% "high" or "very high" at 2–6 yearsNot reported
Self-confidence improvement83% at 6–8 weeks; 72% sustained at 2–6 years—
Seroma4.8%—
Infection3.3%2% (1 / 49)
Erosion—4.1% (2 / 49)
Device removal3%—
[31][33]

Complications. Ramazan et al. (2026) noted that silicone implants carry risks of infection, erosion, seroma, and necrosis, with a removal rate of up to 10% in some series, resulting in severe penile deformities.[6]

SMSNA position — the Penuma implant "may be considered" for cosmetic enhancement of the flaccid penis, but patients should be counseled about potential complications including infection, erosion, and the possibility of device removal.[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 + fat injection (Deskoulidi & Caminer, 2023).[22]
  • Suspensory-ligament release + bovine-pericardial graft + plasma gel (Hardrock Sandwich Technique).[29]
  • Suprapubic liposuction + ligament release + acellular dermal matrix spacer (Zhang et al., 2019).[34]

The systematic review by Vyas et al. (2020; 1,192 patients) found that combined augmentation had the highest complication rate (14.6% pooled), compared with length-only or girth-only procedures.[28]

Part VIII: Complications — comprehensive overview​

ModalityCommon complicationsSevere complications
HA / PLA fillersInjection-site reactions, edema, nodulesRare; migration, vascular occlusion (theoretical)
Autologous fatFat resorption (30–70%), asymmetry, nodulesFat 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%)Erosion, severe deformity, removal (up to 10%)
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]

Part IX: SMSNA position statements (2024)​

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

  1. Injectable soft-tissue fillers — may be considered for girth enhancement; HA is the best-studied agent; patients should understand the temporary nature of results.
  2. Suspensory-ligament division — may be considered for length enhancement in select patients; realistic expectations are critical; satisfaction rates are historically low.
  3. Graft-and-flap procedures — should be considered investigational; limited data on long-term outcomes.
  4. Silicone sleeve implants (Penuma / Himplant) — may be considered for cosmetic enhancement of the flaccid penis; FDA-cleared but long-term multicenter data are needed.
  5. Sliding / slicing techniques — should be considered investigational and performed only in research settings.
  6. General — a multidisciplinary approach including psychological screening is essential; patients with BDD should be referred for psychiatric treatment rather than surgery.

Part X: Management algorithm​

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

  1. Comprehensive evaluation — history, physical examination with standardized penile measurements, assessment for micropenis vs. SPS / PDD.
  2. Psychological screening — validated instruments (e.g., MGSIS, IIEF-5, BDD screening questionnaires); formal psychiatric evaluation if BDD is suspected.
  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 loss and suprapubic liposuction for buried / concealed penis.
  5. Procedural intervention (if conservative measures fail and patient has realistic expectations):
    • Girth — HA filler injection (least invasive, reversible) → dermal grafts → Penuma / Himplant implant.
    • Length — suspensory ligament division ± spacer / flap → combined procedures.
    • Buried penis — escutcheonectomy, panniculectomy, suprapubic liposuction (these are reconstructive, not purely cosmetic — see Adult-Acquired Buried Penis).
  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 — careful psychological screening is mandatory to identify BDD / PDD.[6][10]
  2. No procedure has Level 1 evidence — overall study quality is low, with inconsistent methodology for measuring outcomes and reporting complications.[28][36]
  3. Non-invasive approaches should be offered first — penile traction devices represent the only evidence-based conservative option for length.[13]
  4. HA fillers are the best-tolerated injectable for girth but are temporary and require repeat treatments.[19][20]
  5. Suspensory-ligament division provides modest, variable length gains with historically low satisfaction rates (27–35%).[25]
  6. The Penuma is the only FDA-cleared device for cosmetic penile enhancement (Himplant occupies the same procedural category) but carries risks of erosion, infection, and removal (up to 10%).[31][6]
  7. Illicit injections (silicone, paraffin, mineral oil) are extremely dangerous and can cause devastating complications including gangrene, amputation, and death.[6][24]
  8. Complications are likely under-reported — referral-center series reveal severe deformities and functional compromise in men with previously normal anatomy.[23]
  9. Satisfaction does not always correlate with objective size change — psychosocial improvement may be independent of measured augmentation.[21][11]
  10. A multidisciplinary approach involving urology, plastic surgery, psychology / psychiatry, and sexual medicine is essential for optimal patient selection and outcomes.[7][1]

Cross-references​

  • Adult-Acquired Buried Penis — the reconstructive (not cosmetic) condition that overlaps with concealed-penis presentations.
  • Peyronie's Disease — the curvature / shortening differential and the only condition with Level-1 evidence for traction therapy.
  • Erectile Dysfunction — the dominant overlapping driver of perceived inadequacy.
  • Genital Reconstruction — atlas of penile augmentation procedures (suspensory release, fillers, Penuma / Himplant).

References​

1. 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

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