A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between Hyaluronic Acid and Polylactic Acid Filler Injection in Penile Augmentation: A Multicenter, Patient/Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Trial
- 1 March 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Journal of Sexual Medicine
- Vol. 16 (4), 577-585
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.01.310
Abstract
Studies about the clinical utility of fillers on penile augmentation (PA) are lacking. Furthermore, no randomized study has compared the utilities of fillers. To compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) filler injection for PA. This prospective, randomized patient/evaluator-blind, comparative multicenter study consisted of an initial 2-week baseline period and 48-week patient/evaluator-blind post-injection period. 72 patients with small penis syndrome were enrolled from 3 institutions between March–July 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the HA group, comprising 36 patients injected with HA, and the PLA group, comprising 36 patients injected with PLA. Penile girth and satisfaction were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks after injection. Penile girth increases adequately lasted ≤48 weeks in both groups (16.95 ± 10.53 and 13.49 ± 9.98 mm of mean increase in the HA and PLA groups, respectively; P < .001). The mean penile girth increase in the HA group was significantly greater than that in the PLA group at 4 weeks (P < .001). Subsequently, it gradually decreased and was no longer significantly different at 48 weeks (P = .075). Satisfaction levels increased after injection and were maintained ≤48 weeks. No significant differences were observed in the overall satisfaction level between the groups (P > .05). Filler injection–related adverse events were mild and transient and occurred in 1 and 3 patients in the HA and PLA groups, respectively. This study provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of HA and PLA fillers, which are the most commonly used soft tissue fillers for PA. This study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare the efficacy and safety between different filler injections for human PA. However, it was impossible to perform a researcher-blinded trial because of the unique properties of fillers, and 31 patients (43.1%) were dropped during the study period. Both HA and PLA filler injections for PA led to a significant augmentative effect without serious adverse events and had clinically comparable efficacy and safety. Yang DY, Ko K, Lee SH, et al. A Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Between Hyaluronic Acid and Polylactic Acid Filler Injection in Penile Augmentation: A Multicenter, Patient/Evaluator-Blinded, Randomized Trial. J Sex Med 2019;XX:XXX–XXX.Keywords
Funding Information
- Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
- Across Co, Ltd
- Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Systematic Review of Clinical Trials of Small- and Large-Gel-Particle Hyaluronic Acid Injectable Fillers for Aesthetic Soft Tissue AugmentationDermatologic Surgery, 2013
- Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: History and OverviewFacial Plastic Surgery, 2011
- The Use of Poly-l-Lactic Acid Filler in Facial AestheticsFacial Plastic Surgery, 2011
- The Effects of Penile Girth Enhancement Using Injectable Hyaluronic Acid Gel, a FillerThe Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2011
- The status of penile enhancement proceduresCurrent Opinion in Urology, 2009
- Semipermanent and Permanent Injectable FillersDermatologic Clinics, 2009
- Breakthroughs in US dermal fillers for facial soft-tissue augmentationJournal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, 2009
- Minimizing Adverse Events Associated with Poly-l-lactic Acid InjectionDermatologic Surgery, 2008
- Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’BJU International, 2007
- Hyaluronic acid fillersDermatologic Therapy, 2006