|
Retrospective studies
|
| Xu et al. (2019) |
Unspecified PADM |
Penile girth enhancement
78 patients
Mean age: 31.14 years (age range = 21–66 years)
Exclusion: patients aged 70+ years, history of mental illness, coagulopathy or type I/II diabetes |
3-month postoperatively: penile circumference increased by 1.1 cm (range = 0.5–2.1 cm) on average Complications noted: 47 patients with erectile discomfort, 12 patients delayed healing, 10 unobvious augmentation effect, 8 wound haematoma, 7 prepuce oedema, 4 wound infection and 3 with skin necrosis of the dorsal side 7 patients eventually underwent ADM removal
|
|
Prospective studies
|
| Alei et al. (2012) |
Unspecified PADM |
Penile girth augmentation
69 patients |
Postoperatively at 6 and 12 months: mean flaccid penis circumference was 11.3 cm (range = 8.2–13.2 cm), a 3.1-cm mean increase, and erect mean circumference was 13.2 cm (range = 8.8–14.5 cm), a 2.4-cm increase Psychosexual impact of operation was beneficial in the majority Minor complications resolved with conservative treatment within 3 weeks, no major complications noted
|
| Tealab et al. (2013) |
Pelvicol™,
PADM |
Penile augmentation
18 patients
Mean age: 24 years (age range = 19–38 years) |
Pelvicol is not an ideal option for enhancing penile girth In total after 1 year: 2 patients highly satisfied, 7 patients moderately satisfied and 9 unsatisfied 8 total complications resulting in severe penile oedema and ischemic shaft ulcers 4 total patients required total graft removal Group 1: mean increase in girth was 2.8 cm (range = 2–3.2 cm); Group 2: mean girth increase was 1.7 cm (range = 1.2–2 cm)
|
| Zhang J et al. (2004) |
Unspecified PADM |
Penile augmentation
12 patients |
Postoperative: mean increase in flaccid penile girth was 2.6 cm (1.3–3.1 cm) All patients regained sexual ability within 3 months postoperatively 1 patient: delayed wound healing (due to tight dressing), repaired with a scrotal skin flap Aesthetically normal results without contour deformities
|
| Zhang X et al. (2018) |
Unspecified PADM |
Penile augmentation for improvements in premature ejaculation
39 patients
Mean age at the time of operation: 29 years (age range = 24–37)
Excluded: those with penis deformities, bleeding disorders, keloid formation; those who were on medication for ejaculatory function |
Baseline data: 6.93 ± 1.00 cm flaccid girth, 10.59 ± 1.15 cm erect girth, 225.6 ± 120.4 s IELT (self-estimated) 6-month follow-up: 8.07 ± 1.06 cm flaccid girth, 12.79 ± 1.22 cm erect girth, 424.3 ± 123.8 s IELT (self-estimated) 2-year follow-up: 7.89 ± 1.04 cm flaccid girth, 11.53 ± 1.19 cm erect girth, 412.8 ± 123.1 s IELT (self-estimated) Minor complications were resolved with conservative treatment within 3 weeks
|
| Zhang Z et al. (2015) |
Unspecified PADM |
Wound healing of Fournier gangrene
36 total patients, 17 experimental (those with XADM) and 19 controls |
Hospitalisation period: experimental group 26.06 ± 0.83 days and control group 38.11 ± 5.60 days Wound preparation time: experimental group 13.64 ± 1.46 days and control group 22.37 ± 1.38 days Interecological organisation protection, granulation tissue growth promotion, and penile function and morphology retained all observed
|
