Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES:

Penile length is of significant concern to many men. Standard penile stretched length assessment is easily affected by patient anatomy, insufficient force of stretch applied and the overall poor measuring techniques. In order to obtain more accurate penile length measurements, the authors developed a penile length measuring device and present their initial findings here.

METHODS:

Healthy men between 18 and 35 years of age volunteered for this IRB-approved study. Following an informed consent, patients filled out basic demographics data, inclusion/ exclusion criteria, IIEF-5 and Erectile Hardness Score (EHS) questionnaires. Penile girth and un-stretched and stretched penile lengths were obtained with use of standard measuring techniques (wooden ruler, measuring tape). Next, a penile length measuring device was used to determine maximal force of stretch needed and the stretched penile length at point of maximal force (as reported by the patient, when examiner was asked to stop the stretch due to discomfort). All measurements were performed by the same provider. Results are reported as means ± standard deviations and analyzed using t-test.

RESULTS:

Measurements were completed on twelve men. Patient age was 23 ± 4.4 (18–32) years and a BMI was 22.7 ± 2.1 kg/m2. Eight men were Caucasian, two Asian, one African-American and one Hawaiian. IIEF-5 score was 24.4 ± 0.8 (23–25) and EHS was 4. Flaccid unstretched and stretched penile lengths were 8.6 ± 1.4 cm and 11 ± 1.6 cm, respectively. Maximal force was 0.74 ± 0.3 kg, by which stretched penile length was 2.7 ± 2.7 cm greater than conventional methodology. These findings are of statistical significance, with the p-value of 0.005.

CONCLUSIONS:

Standard penile stretched measurements underestimate the true length of the penis. A measuring tool, with a standardized mechanical force, may be useful in clinical practice to ensure more accurate values. Further tests are under way to assess inter-observer variability and device reliability when used in the general urology clinic population.

Source of Funding:

None