MP47-16 SAFETY OF NOVEL HYALURONIC ACID DERMAL FILLER INJECTIONS FOR PENILE GIRTH ENHANCEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Medical, Hormonal & Non-surgical Therapy I (MP47)1 May 2024MP47-16 SAFETY OF NOVEL HYALURONIC ACID DERMAL FILLER INJECTIONS FOR PENILE GIRTH ENHANCEMENT Amy M. Pearlman, Kristen Gumpf, William Moore, Jonathan Clavell, Jagan Kansal, Fenwa Milhouse, Kevin Zorn, Montreal Canada, and Alexander Tatem Amy M. PearlmanAmy M. Pearlman , Kristen GumpfKristen Gumpf , William MooreWilliam Moore , Jonathan ClavellJonathan Clavell , Jagan KansalJagan Kansal , Fenwa MilhouseFenwa Milhouse , Kevin ZornKevin Zorn , Montreal CanadaMontreal Canada , and Alexander TatemAlexander Tatem View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008880.11564.10.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist regarding safety of penile girth enhancement treatments. Reported options for girth enhancement include injections of autologous fat, liquid silicone, hyaluronic acid (HA), or polymethyl-methacrylate, grafting with dermal fat, porcine dermal acellular matrix, or acellular collagen matrix, and surgical placement of a silicone implant. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate safety in a cohort of men undergoing standardized penile girth enhancement with HA dermal filler at a single site by reporting on post-procedure complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of men who underwent penile girth enhancement with HA dermal filler from August 2020 through April 2023. Peri-procedure adverse events were identified and reported using the Clavien-Dindo Classification system. RESULTS: 471 men underwent penile girth enhancement with HA dermal filler. All observed complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2 only). Two patients (0.42%) experienced injection site infections related to non-compliance post treatment with infection resolution after completing a course of oral antibiotic. One patient (0.21%) reported urinary tract infection symptoms shortly after HA dermal filler procedure, likely related to cutting his penis while shaving, and subsequently underwent additional filler injections without recurrence of urinary symptoms. One patient (0.21%) underwent reversal with hyaluronidase after his initial treatment. Three patients (0.63%) developed granulomas which were completely resolved with a single treatment of hyaluronidase. All three of these patients underwent additional HA injections without granuloma formation. Three patients (0.63%) experienced priapism treated without long term sequelae when intracavernosal injection (ICI) therapy was used for tumescence at time of filler injection. Once ICI was no longer used, no patients reported priapism. No patients reported erectile dysfunction or loss of sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that injection of HA dermal filler may be a safe option for men interested in penile girth enhancement. While rare complications may occur, our research suggests they are easily treatable in the outpatient setting without long term sequelae. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e769 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Amy M. Pearlman More articles by this author Kristen Gumpf More articles by this author William Moore More articles by this author Jonathan Clavell More articles by this author Jagan Kansal More articles by this author Fenwa Milhouse More articles by this author Kevin Zorn More articles by this author Montreal Canada More articles by this author Alexander Tatem More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".