Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Size matters: characterizing penile augmentation content from the 100 most popular YouTube videos

International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Aesthetic penile augmentation is considered investigational and not shown to be safe or efficacious. This study sought to characterize the quality and reliability of YouTube videos on the topic of penile augmentation. A systematic search identifying the 100 most viewed YouTube videos on penile augmentation was conducted. The videos were then evaluated by two independent urologists for reliability and quality using a modified DISCERN scoring system and Global Quality Scale (GQS). The median total views were 530,612 (range 123,478–32,914,713). The median DISCERN and GQS scores for all 100 videos were generally poor at 1.75 (IQR 1–2.63) and 2.5 (IQR 1.5–3.5), respectively. A little under half of the videos had a physician present (44.7%). DISCERN and GQS scores were significantly higher in videos with physicians compared to those without one (p < 0.001 for both). The majority of videos discussed nonsurgical methods of penile augmentation (65.1%) with penile traction devices being the most frequently discussed (19.2%). Urologists and medical organizations should strive to have more of a presence in this space to ensure patients are appropriately educated and counseled before pursuing potentially ineffective or harmful treatments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Li MK, Shahinyan G, Sigalos JT, Mills JN, Eleswarapu SV. Penile and foreskin stretching practices through time and culture. Urology. 2023;175:2–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.02.018.

  2. Soubra A, Natale C, Brimley S, Hellstrom WJG. Revelations on men who seek penile augmentation surgery: a review. Sex Med Rev. 2022;10:460–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2021.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA. Does size matter? Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychol Men Masc. 2006;7:129–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.3.129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yianni J, Veale D. Penile dysmorphic disorder (PDD). In: Reisman Y, Lowenstein L, Tripodi F, editors. Textbook of rare sexual medicine conditions. Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98263-8_3.

  5. Sharp G, Oates J. Sociocultural influences on men’s penis size perceptions and decisions to undergo penile augmentation: a qualitative study. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:1253–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Romero-Otero J, Manfredi C, Ralph D, Osmonov D, Verze P, Castiglione F, et al. Non-invasive and surgical penile enhancement interventions for aesthetic or therapeutic purposes: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2021;127:269–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zilg B, Råsten-Almqvist P. Fatal fat embolism after penis enlargement by autologous fat transfer: a case report and review of the literature. J Forensic Sci. 2017;62:1383–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Madathil KC, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Greenstein JS, Gramopadhye AK. Healthcare information on YouTube: a systematic review. Health Inform J. 2015;21:173–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458213512220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. List of most visited websites. Wikipedia. 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_visited_websites&oldid=1148075741. Accessed 11 April 2023.

  10. Hong HS, Lang JJ, Damodaran S, Sindhwani P. Assessing information on YouTubeTM as a quality source for the treatment of varicoceles. Indian J Urol. 2021;37:339–44. https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_201_21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lang JJ, Giffen Z, Hong S, Demeter J, El-Zawahry A, Sindhwani P. et al. Assessing vasectomy-related information on youtube: an analysis of the quality, understandability, and actionability of information. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16:15579883221094716. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221094716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gul M, Diri MA. YouTube as a source of information about premature ejaculation treatment. J Sex Med. 2019;16:1734–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2070–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Toksoz A, Duran MB. Analysis of videos about vesicoureteral reflux on YouTube. J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17:858.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:382. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03446-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Warren CJ, Wisener J, Ward B, Behbahani S, Shah T, Fano A, et al. YouTube as a patient education resource for male hypogonadism and testosterone therapy. Sex Med. 2021;9:100324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2021.100324.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Thunder’s Place. https://thunders.place/. Accessed 15 April 2023.

  19. Toprak T, Yilmaz M, Ramazanoglu MA, Verit A, Schlager D, Miernik A. YouTube is inadequate as an information source on delayed ejaculation. Int J Impot Res. 2023;35:392–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00559-3.

  20. Sellke N, Jesse E, Callegari M, Muncey W, Harris D, Edwins R, et al. Is Reddit a reliable source for information on erectile dysfunction treatment? Int J Impot Res. 2022:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00586-0.

  21. Belladelli F, Del Giudice F, Glover F, Mulloy E, Muncey W, Basran S, et al. Worldwide temporal trends in penile length: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Mens Health. 2023;41. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.220203. Online ahead of print.

  22. Ghanem H, Glina S, Assalian P, Buvat J. Position paper: Management of men complaining of a small penis despite an actually normal size. J Sex Med. 2013;10:294–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02725.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Çağlayan A, Gül M. #Penisenlargement on Instagram: a mixed-methods study. Int J Impot Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00646-5. Online ahead of print.

  24. Sharp G, Fernando AN, Kyron M, Oates J, McEvoy P. Motivations and psychological characteristics of men seeking penile girth augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2022;42:1305–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjac112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Mofid MM, Teitelbaum S, Suissa D, Ramirez-Montañana A, Astarita DC, Mendieta C, et al. Report on mortality from gluteal fat grafting: recommendations from the ASERF Task Force. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:796–806. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Rios L Jr, Gupta V. Improvement in Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL) safety with the current recommendations from ASERF, ASAPS, and ISAPS. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40:864–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa098.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Penile Augmentation Surgery – American Urological Association. 2022. https://www.auanet.org/about-us/policy-and-position-statements/penile-augmentation-surgery. Accessed 30 November.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Nicolas Seranio, Wade Muncey, Federico Belladelli & Michael L. Eisenberg

  2. TCU School of Medicine, Fort Worth, TX, USA

    Shanice Cox

  3. Department of Urology, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy

    Federico Belladelli

  4. Department of Urology, University Sapienza, Rome, Italy

    Francesco Del Giudice

  5. Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Frank Glover

Authors
  1. Nicolas Seranio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wade Muncey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shanice Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Belladelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Del Giudice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank Glover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael L. Eisenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NS conceived and designed the study. NS, SC, WM, FB, FG, and FDG performed the data collection. NS performed the statistical analyses and interpretation of the results in consultation with WM and MLE. NS and WM drafted the manuscript in consultation with MLE. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolas Seranio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

MLE is an advisor to Ro, Hannah, Underdog, Sandstone, Dadi, and a consultant to Gilead. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seranio, N., Muncey, W., Cox, S. et al. Size matters: characterizing penile augmentation content from the 100 most popular YouTube videos. Int J Impot Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00728-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00728-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links