(050) Safety and Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Injections Using the UroFill™ Technique for Penile Girth Enhancement
Authors: Suarez-sarmiento Jr. A , Perito P , Cisneros JB , Levitt B , Pomar HA 
Published: February 2024

Abstract

Introduction
Penile girth enhancement (PGE) has gained significant popularity and is in high demand among individuals seeking to improve their sexual experiences and self-confidence. Perception of penile length and girth are integral components of the male psyche. Unfortunately, current treatment options for motivated patients looking to enhance penile girth fall short of patient and clinical expectations. While the safety of penile augmentation methods has been a subject of debate, hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have demonstrated proven efficacy and safety, offering potential solutions for those interested in PGE. Advancements in the field of penile cosmetics with HA has led to the development of the UroFill™ patented technique for PGE.

Objective
To assess the safety and efficacy of injecting HA using the UroFill™ technique for PGE.

Methods
We performed a retrospective analysis of men undergoing penile girth enhancement with FDA-approved HA fillers between October 2021 and March 2023. Patients completed a series of validated questionnaires including the COPS-P, IIEF, and BAPS. Peri- and post-procedure adverse events were closely monitored. Physician follow-up appointments and patient questionnaires were utilized to identify and document these events. The determination of unsatisfactory cosmetic outcomes and the need for revision was made by the treating physician in consultation with the patient. The UroFill™ standardized technique was employed for all injections.

Results
A total of 300 men (mean age: 37, range 21-80) received treatment using the UroFill™ standardized technique. 4,879 injections were performed over this time. Mean injection volume was 16.5 cc (range: 4-78cc) of HA once treatment had been completed. The study observed an average of 3.85 injection sessions (range: 1-44 sessions) and 5.25 post-injection modeling sessions (range 0-55) per patient. After receiving HA dermal fillers, patients experienced local injection site reactions such as bruising, tenderness, swelling, and erythema. These events were generally mild in intensity, and no patient reported bruising lasting longer than 7 days. None of the patients in this cohort required removal of filler. Adverse reactions were limited to 8 cases of localized skin infections which were successfully treated with conservative antibiotic therapy. All localized skin infections were a result of premature sexual intercourse or shaving in the area following injection. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with 272/300 (91%) reporting “completely satisfied” or “mostly satisfied”. Mean filler retention was 90% after 12 months.

Conclusions
This study provides evidence that the UroFill™ standardized technique for penile girth enhancement using HA fillers is both safe and efficacious. With no instances of filler removal and successful management of adverse reactions, the safety profile of HA fillers is further supported. These findings reinforce HA’s potential for sustainable penile enhancement. It is essential these procedures be performed in the described fashion by qualified urological professionals.

Disclosure
Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Coloplast, Boston Scientific, UroFill.