1
|
Pang KH, Randhawa K, Tang S, Fallara G, Katelaris A, Castiglione F, Ahmed K, Blecher G, Christopher N, Ralph DJ, Muneer A, Alnajjar HM. 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; 36:498-508. [PMID: 36859681 PMCID: PMC11251987 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-023-00675-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2022] [Revised: 01/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 03/03/2023]
Abstract
Injection of exogenous material into the penis and scrotum has been performed for augmentation purposes. Complications include cosmetic dissatisfaction, penile necrosis and lymphoedema. We report the complications and outcomes from a single centre with an updated systematic review of the literature. A retrospective review of all cases presenting with foreign substance injection into the genitalia, over a 10-year period was performed. Thirty-five patients with a mean (standard deviation (SD); range) age of 36.9 (±9.1; 22-61) years at presentation were included. The mean (SD; range) time between injection and presentation was 7.8 (±5.8; 1 day-20 years) years. The most common injected substance was silicone (n = 16, 45.7%) and liquid paraffin (n = 8, 22.9%). The penile shaft (94.3%) was the most injected site. The most common presentations were cosmetic dissatisfaction (57.1%) and pain and/or swelling (45.7%). Surgery was required in 32 (91.4%) cases. Primary procedures included local excision and primary closure (n = 19, 59.4%), circumcision (n = 5, 15.6%), excision with a split skin graft or a scrotal flap reconstruction (n = 5, 15.6%). Three (8.6%) patients presented with necrosis and required acute debridement. Overall, 18 patients had more than 1 procedure, and 8 patients required 3 or more procedures. A systematic search of the literature identified 887 articles of which 68 studies were included for analysis. The most common substance injected was paraffin (47.7%), followed by silicone (15.8%). The majority of patients (77.9%) presented with pain, swelling or penile deformity. 78.8% of the patients underwent surgical treatment, which included excision and primary closure with or without the use of skin grafts (85.1% of all procedures), the use of flaps (12.3%) and penile amputation (n = 2). Complications of foreign body injection into the male genitalia can be serious resulting in necrosis and autoamputation. Surgical intervention is often required to excise abnormal tissue to manage pain and improve cosmesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karl H Pang
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Karen Randhawa
- Department of Urology, Western Health and Social Care Trust, Ireland, UK
| | - Stanley Tang
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Giuseppe Fallara
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Athos Katelaris
- Department of Urology, St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Fabio Castiglione
- Department of Urology, King's College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kamran Ahmed
- Department of Urology, King's College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Gideon Blecher
- Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Nim Christopher
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - David J Ralph
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Asif Muneer
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Department of Surgical Biotechnology, University College London, London, UK
| | - Hussain M Alnajjar
- Department of Urology and Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Le Penske W, Leslie DC, Latini JM, Lerner LB. Injectable Penile Enhancement Procedures: A Review of Agents, Risks, and Complications. Urology 2024; 189:126-134. [PMID: 38777188 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.05.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2023] [Revised: 04/21/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
Penile dysmorphophobic disorder describes men who feel their normal penile size is inadequate. Penile fillers have been used to address penile size dissatisfaction. However, unpredictability of these procedures can yield unfavorable outcomes. Reactions to these foreign bodies are inherently uncertain, owing to an array of materials, concentrations, and biocompatibility. Management of complications also varies. As fillers are more commonly used in cosmetic procedures to augment facial features, most genitourinary surgeons are unfamiliar with these therapies. This review seeks to describe the available materials, techniques, and risk profiles of the various types of fillers used for penile augmentation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniel C Leslie
- Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | - Jerilyn M Latini
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
| | - Lori B Lerner
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kusumaputra A, Setiawan MR, Soebadi MA, Wirjopranoto S. Efficacy and complications of hyaluronic acid and polylactic acid for penile augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2023; 85:4531-4538. [PMID: 37663705 PMCID: PMC10473315 DOI: 10.1097/ms9.0000000000001094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/13/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Penile size is considered a symbol of manhood and is a subjective problem for men, especially those with small penis syndrome. Penile augmentation was introduced to correct penile size problems from a medical, psychological, or esthetic point of view. Hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) are two types of augmentation agents that are popularly used today. However, no systematic studies and meta-analyses have compared these two modalities as penile augmentation agents. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of penile filler injections with HA compared to PLA. Methods This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles examining the differences in efficacy and adverse events of the administration of HA and PLA in patients undergoing penile augmentation were systematically reviewed from the PubMed, Proquest, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. An odds ratio with a 95% CI was applied to measure the study outcome. The analysis was performed with RevMan 5.4 software. The risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Risk of Bias v2 instrument from Cochrane. This research protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registry. Result Four articles consisting of 283 research subjects were included in this study. The meta-analysis for penile girth enhancement after penile augmentation found significant results in the HA group compared to the PLA group (P=0.01). There was no difference in the level of satisfaction with penile appearance 4 weeks after penile augmentation in the HA group compared to the PLA group (P=0.79). HA was significantly superior in sexual satisfaction 12 weeks postpenile augmentation (P=0.0004). There was no difference in the incidence of pain after penile augmentation in the HA group compared to the PLA group (P=0.33). In the postaugmentation penile inflammation, there was no difference (P=0.98) in the HA group compared to the PLA group. Conclusion There are differences in the efficacy of penile augmentation with the superiority of HA in increasing penile diameter and postaugmentation sexual satisfaction compared to PLA. There was no difference in the incidence of complications between using HA and PLA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Soetojo Wirjopranoto
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schifano N, Capogrosso P, Antonini G, Baldini S, Scroppo F, Salonia A, Zerbinati N, Dehò F. The Application of Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Functional and Aesthetic Andrology: A Narrative Review. Gels 2023; 9:gels9020118. [PMID: 36826290 PMCID: PMC9957416 DOI: 10.3390/gels9020118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Revised: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/26/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a glycosaminoglycan widely utilised in different fields of medicine. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific evidence on the use of HA in andrology. A review of the literature to identify pertinent studies concerning the use of HA in andrology was carried out on the Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases, with no time restriction up to December 2022. Penile girth enlargement (PGE) using HA proved to be safe and effective in enhancing the diameter of the penis, with durable and satisfactory outcomes in long-term follow-up. Injection of HA in the glans seems to represent an alternative treatment option for those patients with premature ejaculation (PE) who fail to respond to conventional medications. HA intra-plaque injections represent a valid option which may contribute to restore sexual activity in patients with Peyronie's disease (PD). The adoption of HA filler injections should always be tailored to the patient's peculiar anatomy and underlying condition. More robust evidence is required to achieve a uniformed consensus regarding the use of HA in andrology, and further efforts should continue to improve the current injection techniques and HA products.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicolò Schifano
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
| | - Paolo Capogrosso
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
| | - Gabriele Antonini
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
- Antonini Urology, 00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Sara Baldini
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Scroppo
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
| | - Andrea Salonia
- Department of Urology, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy
- Unit of Urology, Division of Experimental Oncology, Urology Research Institute (URI), IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Zerbinati
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
| | - Federico Dehò
- ASST Sette Laghi–Circolo e Fondazione Macchi Hospital, 21100 Varese, Italy
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|