Aesthetic Penile Augmentation Procedures: A Comprehensive and Current Perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Some men experience small penis syndrome (SPS), a body dysmorphic disorder in which a patient believes their penis to be small even when it is clinically average. As cosmetic surgery becomes more widely accepted, management of SPS may present a challenge for urologists. We aim to provide an updated review of aesthetic penile augmentation procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Augmentation procedures range from invasive to noninvasive. Surgical solutions include grafts and flaps, suspensory ligament release, and suprapubic lipectomy. Minimally invasive solutions include injections of fillers (hyaluronic acid, polylactic acid, and polymethyl methacrylate). Noninvasive solutions include external devices such as vacuum pumps and traction devices. In the current climate, aesthetic penile augmentation is becoming a desirable option for many patients but remains clinically controversial. Our review summarizes recent and relevant studies and demonstrates the need for further research and consensus on penile augmentation procedures.

Circumferential Acquired Macropenis: Definition, Literature Review and Proposal of Geometrically-Based Reduction Corporoplasty

Introduction

Over the years, scattered cases of acquired penile girth increase have been published with different terms, the common clinical feature being a mechanically hampered penetration.

Aim

To search for all published cases of acquired penile girth increase, and to propose a geometrically-based reduction corporoplasty.

Methods

A case of acquired penile bilateral albuginea herniation prompted us to a PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar literature review from 1970 to 2021, in search for similar conditions.

Main Outcome Measure

We identified 7 cases of acquired penile girth increase; the geometric approach used to surgically correct bilateral corporal herniation proved successful in our case.

Results

In 5 of the 7 cases of acquired penile girth increase, priapistic episodes were deemed the causal factor; in the remaining 2 and in ours, a clear etiology could not be identified.

Conclusion

“Circumferential acquired macropenis” describes the unusual syndrome of acquired penile girth increase, that encompasses 2 distinct etiologies: post-priapistic cases, characterized by penile girth increase both in flaccidity and erection, and idiopathic cases, characterized by girth increase in erection only, and at surgery by a thinned albuginea in the affected area.

Pescatori ES, Drei B, Rabito S Circumferential Acquired Macropenis: Definition, Literature Review and Proposal of Geometrically-Based Reduction Corporoplasty. Sex Med 2022;10:100460.

The effects of gluteal squeezes compared to bilateral bridges on gluteal strength, power, endurance, and girth

BACKGROUND

Hip extension weakness is correlated with low back, hip, and knee pathology. Isometric gluteal squeezes have been shown to elicit high electromyographic gluteal activity. However, there is little research regarding the specific effects of isometric gluteal squeezes on hip strength and functional outcomes. The purpose of this study was to identify the effects of gluteal squeezes on hip extension strength, vertical jump, broad jump, single-leg bridge endurance, and gluteal girth compared to bilateral gluteal bridging.

METHODS

A total of 32 healthy university students (mean age 23.28 ± 2.15 years) were randomly assigned to perform either gluteal squeezes or bilateral bridges daily. Subjects were tested at baseline and after 8 weeks of training. Subjects' hip extension strength, vertical jump, broad jump, single-leg bridge endurance, and gluteal girth were tested.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found between the bridge and squeeze groups after 8 weeks of training. Both groups significantly improved hip extension strength bilaterally (p = 0.000-0.011). The squeeze group significantly increased gluteal girth at the level of the greater trochanter (p = 0.007), but no significant girth increase was seen in the bridge group (p = 0.742). Although increases were seen in both groups for the endurance and jump tasks, no statistically significant changes occurred for those outcomes. All outcome measurements demonstrated high reliability (ICC = 0.93-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Gluteal squeezes were as effective as bilateral bridges for increasing hip extension strength. Gluteal squeezes also significantly increased girth at the level of the greater trochanter. These results provide clinical and aesthetic reasons to perform gluteal squeezes.

Girth pressure measurements reveal high peak pressures that can be avoided using an alternative girth design that also results in increased limb protraction and flexion in the swing phase

Girths are frequently blamed for veterinary and performance problems, but research into girth/horse interaction is sparse. The study objectives were (1) to determine location of peak pressure under a range of girths, and (2) to compare horse gait between the horse's standard girth and a girth designed to avoid detected peak pressure locations. In the first part of the study, and following validation procedures, a calibrated pressure mat placed under the girth of 10 horses was used to determine the location of peak pressures. A girth was designed to avoid peak pressure locations (Girth F). In the second part, 20 elite horses/riders with no lameness or performance problem were ridden in Girth F and their standard girth (Girth S) in a double blind crossover design. Pressure mat data were acquired from under the girths. High speed video was captured and forelimb and hindlimb protraction, maximal carpal and tarsal flexion during flight were determined in trot. In standard girths, peak pressures were located over the musculature behind the elbow. Pressure mat results revealed that the maximum forces with Girth S were 22% (left) and 14% (right) greater than Girth F, and peak pressures were 76% (left) and 98% (right) greater (P<0.01 for all). On gait evaluation, Girth F was associated with 6-11% greater forelimb protraction, 10-20% greater hindlimb protraction, 4% greater carpal flexion, and 3% greater tarsal flexion than Girth S (P<0.01 for all). Peak pressures were located where horses tend to develop pressure sores. Girth F reduced peak pressures under the girth, and improved limb protraction and carpal/ tarsal flexion, which may reflect improved posture and comfort.