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