To critically appraise the safety and efficacy of male genital augmentation and enhancement procedures, and to formulate consensus recommendations for urologists and medical professionals.
Methods:
A systematic search of the literature published between 2000 and 2025 was conducted. Outcomes of interest focused on penile length and girth changes, complications, and validated patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB-2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomised studies. Evidence was synthesised qualitatively by intervention type. Consensus recommendations were generated through structured group appraisal by the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Andrology and Genitourethral Surgery (AGUS), integrating the evidence base with expert opinion, quality assessments, and patient safety considerations.
Results:
Thirty-six studies (n = 3748) were included: 12 injectable fillers and 24 surgical. Injectable fillers produced short-term girth gains with mild, transient complications. Surgical procedures demonstrated modest increases in length and girth, though complicated by infection, fibrosis, and/or device removal. Across the eligible evidence, the risk of bias was high, the quality of evidence was low, and expert opinion was consistently low.
Conclusion:
Evidence quality remains poor, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited. As such, five key recommendations were generated by the BAUS AGUS committee on genital augmentation and enhancement with either injectable fillers or surgical procedures.
Romero-OteroJMedina-PoloJIglesias-GallegoM, et al. Non-invasive and surgical penile enhancement interventions for aesthetic or therapeutic purposes: A systematic review. BJU Int2021; 127(3): 269–291.
2.
PangKHRandhawaKTangS, 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 Res2024; 36(5): 498–508.
3.
LeverJFrederickDAPeplauLA.Does size matter? Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychol Men Masculinity2006; 7(3): 129–143.
4.
Abou ChawarebEBantonJHammadMAM, et al. Unveiling consumer interest and regional disparities: Comparative analysis of online search trends for penile aesthetic procedures. Sex Med2025; 13(1): qfaf013.
5.
SeranioNMunceyWCoxS, et al. Size matters: Characterizing penile augmentation content from the 100 most popular YouTube videos. Int J Impot Res2024; 36(5): 493–497.
6.
Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia, www.covidence.org
7.
FlemyngEMooreTHBoutronI, et al. Using risk of bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: Guidance from Cochrane. BMJ Evid Based Med2023; 28(4): 260–266.
SoubraANataleCBrimleyS, et al. Revelations on men who seek penile augmentation surgery: A review. Sex Med Rev2022; 10(3): 460–467.
10.
VealeDMilesSBramleyS, et al. 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 Int2015; 115(6): 978–986.
11.
WessellsHLueTFMcAninchJW.Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: Guidelines for penile augmentation. J Urol1996; 156(3): 995–997.
12.
European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines 2025. Arnhem, the Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office, 2025.
13.
PhillipsKAAtalaKDPopeHG, et al. New research program and abstracts. In: American Psychiatric Association 148th Annual Meeting, Miami, FL, 5–25 May 1995, pp. 157. Miami, FL: American Psychiatric Association.
14.
VealeDEllisonNWernerTG, et al. Development of a cosmetic procedure screening questionnaire (COPS) for body dysmorphic disorder. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2012; 65(4): 530–532.
15.
HerbenickDSchickVReeceM, et al. The development and validation of the male genital self-image scale: Results from a nationally representative probability sample of men in the United States. J Sex Med2013; 10(6): 1516–1525.
16.
DavisSNBinikYMAmselR, et al. The index of male genital image: A new scale to assess male genital satisfaction. J Urol2013; 190(4): 1335–1339.
17.
YangDYJeongHCAhnST, et al. A comparison between hyaluronic acid and polylactic acid filler injections for temporary penile augmentation in patients with small penis syndrome: A multicenter, patient/evaluator-blind, randomized trial. J Sex Med2020; 17(1): 133–141.
18.
AhnSTShimJSBaeWJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of penile girth enhancement using hyaluronic acid filler and the clinical impact on ejaculation: A multicenter, patient/evaluator-blinded, randomized active-controlled trial. World J Mens Health2022; 40(2): 299–307.
19.
KwakTIOhMKimJJ, et al. The effects of penile girth enhancement using injectable hyaluronic acid gel, a filler. J Sex Med2011; 8(12): 3407–3413.
20.
ZhangCLQuanYLiH, et al. Penile augmentation with injectable hyaluronic acid gel: An alternative choice for small penis syndrome. Asian J Androl2022; 24(6): 601–606.
21.
BoikoMINotsekMSBoikoOM.The efficacy of injection penile girth enhancement as an option for small penis syndrome management. Aesthet Surg J2023; 44(1): 84–91.
22.
KimDWJeongHCKoK, et al. Which dermal filler is better for penile augmentation for aesthetic purposes? A prospective, single-surgeon study based on real-world experience. World J Mens Health2024; 43(2): 428.
23.
SitoGMarlinoSSantorelliA.Use of macrolane VRF 30 in emicircumferential penis enlargement. Aesthet Surg J2013; 33(2): 258–264.
24.
YangDYKoKLeeSH, et al. Efficacy and safety of a newly developed polylactic acid microsphere as an injectable bulking agent for penile augmentation: 18-months follow-up. Int J Impot Res2017; 29(4): 136–141.
25.
KangDHChungJHKimYJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of penile girth enhancement by autologous fat injection for patients with thin penises. Aesthetic Plast Surg2012; 36(4): 813–818.
26.
KimMTKoKLeeWK, et al. Long-term safety and longevity of a mixture of polymethyl methacrylate and cross-linked dextran (Lipen-10®) after penile augmentation: Extension study from 6 to 18 months. World J Mens Health2015; 33(3): 202–208.
27.
YangDYKoKLeeSH, et al. Efficacy and safety of newly developed cross-linked dextran gel injection for glans penis augmentation with a novel technique. Asian J Androl2018; 20(1): 80–84.
28.
LiCYKayesOKellPD, et al. Penile suspensory ligament division for penile augmentation: Indications and results. Eur Urol2006; 49(4): 729–733.
29.
BoikoMINotsekMSBoikoOM, et al. Penis enlargement by penile suspensory ligament division with cross-plasty of the skin. Turk J Urol2022; 48(2): 91–97.
30.
ShaeerOShaeerKel-SebaieA.Minimizing the losses in penile lengthening: V-Y half-skin half-fat advancement flap and T-closure combined with severing the suspensory ligament. J Sex Med2006; 3(1): 155–160.
31.
GhanemHShamloulRKhodeirF, et al. Structured management and counseling for patients with a complaint of a small penis. J Sex Med2007; 4(5): 1322–1327.
32.
SpyropoulosEGalanakisIDellisA.Augmentation phalloplasty patient selection and satisfaction inventory (APPSSI): A novel questionnaire. Urology2007; 70(2): 221–226.
33.
ZhuoQLiSWuJ, et al. Clinical application of scrotal flap on penis lengthening. Saudi Med J2009; 30(3): 418–421.
34.
MertziotisNKozyrakisDBogrisE.Is V-Y plasty necessary for penile lengthening? Description of a novel technique. Asian J Androl2013; 15(6): 819–823.
35.
NabilNHosnyHKadahA, et al. Evaluation of surgical outcome of penile augmentation and lengthening procedures. Urol Int2013; 90(4): 465–469.
36.
XuLZhaoMChenW, et al. Augmentation phalloplasty with autologous dermal fat graft in the treatment of ‘small penis’. Ann Plast Surg2016; 77suppl 1: S60–S65.
37.
ZhangGXWengMWangMD, et al. Autologous dermal graft combined with a modified degloving procedure for penile augmentation in young adults: A preliminary study. Andrology2016; 4(5): 927–931.
38.
LittaraAMeloneRMorales-MedinaJC, et al. Cosmetic penile enhancement surgery: A 3-year single-centre retrospective clinical evaluation of 355 cases. Sci Rep2019; 9(1): 6323.
39.
ZhangXHuangZXiaoY, et al. Suspensory ligament release combined with acellular dermal matrix filler in infrapubic space: A new method for penile length augmentation. Andrologia2019; 51(9): e13351.
40.
RossiAAleiGFrisendaM, et al. Penile lenghthening original technique using a pubo-cavernous spacer. Long term results from a series of over 200 patients. Arch Ital Urol Androl2022; 94(3): 339–344.
41.
PerovicSVByunJSScheplevP, et al. New perspectives of penile enhancement surgery: Tissue engineering with biodegradable scaffolds. Eur Urol2006; 49(1): 139–147.
42.
JinZWuYGYuanYM, et al. Tissue engineering penoplasty with biodegradable scaffold Maxpol-T cografted autologous fibroblasts for small penis syndrome. J Androl2011; 32(5): 491–495.
43.
AleiGLetiziaPRicottilliF, et al. Penile girth augmentation through porcine dermal acellular grafts: Results in a 69-patient series. J Sex Med2012; 9(7): 1945–1953.
44.
TealabAAMaaroufAMHabousM, et al. The use of an acellular collagen matrix in penile augmentation: A pilot study in Saudi Arabia. Arab J Urol2013; 11(2): 169–173.
45.
DjordjevicMLBumbasirevicUStojanovicB, et al. Repeated penile girth enhancement with biodegradable scaffolds: Microscopic ultrastructural analysis and surgical benefits. Asian J Androl2018; 20(5): 488–492.
46.
ZhangHJinCZhangP, et al. Human acellular dermal matrix augmentation phalloplasty surgery. Plast Surg2020; 28(3): 161–166.
47.
TabassiKTTafazoliNAlamdariDH, et al. Penile enhancement using biodegradable scaffolds covered with platelet-rich plasma-fibrin glue, mesenchymal stem cells for micropenis. Urol J2024; 21(02): 126–132.
48.
ElistJJValenzuelaRHillelsohnJ, et al. Preliminary evaluation of the penuma silicone sleeve implant for elective cosmetic correction of the flaccid penis. J Sex Med2018; 15(9): 1216–1223.
49.
SiegalARZismanASljivichM, et al. Outcomes of a single center’s initial experience with the Penuma penile implant. Urology2023; 171: 236–243.
50.
SalkowskiMLevineLA.Outcomes and patient satisfaction after Penuma silicone implant surgery via two surgical approaches. Ther Adv Urol2024; 16: 17562872241280021.
51.
ChengCSunWHWuZY, et al. Improving sexual function through penis enlargement: Comparing silicone pearls implantation and fat grafting. Aesthetic Plast Surg2024; 48(24): 5373–5380.
52.
YangBLiuXRHongQQ, et al. A comparative study on two kinds of surgical procedures of penile corpora cavernosa augmentation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2009; 62(3): 357–364.
53.
MooreKTFuMZLichtbrounBJ, et al. Penile enhancement surgery – the short and the long of it. Urology2025; 197: 226–231.
