Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

The objective of standard guideline for utilization of human lung organoids is to provide the basic guidelines required for the manufacture, culture, and quality control of the lung organoids for use in non-clinical efficacy and inhalation toxicity assessments of the respiratory system. As a first step towards the utilization of human lung organoids, the current guideline provides basic, minimal standards that can promote development of alternative testing methods, and can be referenced not only for research, clinical, or commercial uses, but also by experts and researchers at regulatory institutions when assessing safety and efficacy.

There is no safe and effective standard method for glans penis augmentation. Furthermore, there has been scant research on glans penis augmentation due to a poor understanding of glans anatomy, technical difficulty, and a lack of suitable substances for augmentation. Cross-linked dextran gel is a newly developed filler for soft-tissue augmentation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of using a novel technique to inject cross-linked dextran gel for glans penis augmentation during a 24-week follow-up study. This prospective, single-arm, multicenter study enrolled twenty healthy adult men who underwent glans penis augmentation between June and August 2013. Cross-linked dextran gel was injected into the glans penis using a simple and easy technique. The sizes of the glans penis and individual satisfaction were assessed. Any adverse event was also reported. A total of 18 individuals were analyzed; two of them were lost to follow-up. The mean procedure time and injected volume were about 30 min and 6.6 ± 0.9 ml, respectively. The mean surface areas of the glans at baseline and 24 weeks were 20.0 ± 3.5 cm2 and 33.6 ± 5.4 cm2 , respectively, representing a mean increase of 68.7% ± 14.0% (P < 0.001). Sixteen individuals (88.9%) were satisfied with the outcomes, and none were dissatisfied. There were no serious adverse events during the study. Cross-linked dextran gel injection for glans penis augmentation was easy and showed a significant augmentative effect on the glans penis, good durability, and was well tolerated without serious adverse events. Therefore, cross-linked dextran gel injection may be an effective, new technique for glans penis augmentation.
Adult ; Aged ; Cross-Linking Reagents ; Dextrans/therapeutic use* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gels ; Humans ; Injections ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Satisfaction ; Penis/anatomy & histology* ; Prospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Young Adult

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of a mixture of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and cross-linked dextran Lipen-10(R) used for penile augmentation under the physical impact generated during sexual intercourse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 2010 to October 2011, a total of 20 patients with a mean age of 44 years (interquartile range, 20~70 years) who requested penile augmentation participated in this study. Lipen-10(R) filler is a mixture of 75% cross-linked dextran, 15% PMMA, and 10% hypromellose solution. With the patient in the supine position, Lipen-10(R) was injected into the subcutaneous tissue between the dartos fascia and Buck's fascia of the penis using a fanning technique. Penile length and circumference were measured before the procedure and six, 12, and 18 months after the procedure. Values were compared using the Student's t-test and the paired t-test. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients completed this study. The increases in circumference and length observed six months after the procedure were found to have been maintained without change at 12 and 18 months of follow-up. At 12 and 18 months of follow-up, no abnormal findings were observed. Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging conducted at 18 months of follow-up showed no trace of the injected filler having migrated to other sites, and the volume was well maintained. CONCLUSIONS: Lipen-10(R), a mixture of PMMA and cross-linked dextran, showed good durability and tolerability over 18 months of follow-up during which the participants were sexually active.
Coitus ; Dextrans* ; Fascia ; Follow-Up Studies* ; Humans ; Longevity* ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Male ; Penis ; Polymethyl Methacrylate* ; Subcutaneous Tissue ; Supine Position

PURPOSE: To evaluate how much the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) affects sexual function and which storage symptoms or voiding symptoms have the greatest effect on sexual function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 187 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either tamsulosin 0.2 mg (group A) or tamsulosin 0.2 mg and solifenacin 5 mg (group B). At 4 weeks and 12 weeks, the LUTS and sexual function of the patients were evaluated by use of the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) questionnaire, uroflowmetry, and bladder scan. RESULTS: Both groups A and B showed statistically significant improvements in IPSS, OABSS, and quality of life (QoL). Group A showed improved maximum flow rate, mean flow rate, and residual urine volume by time. Group B did not show an improvement in flow rate or residual urine volume but total voiding volume increased with time. The IIEF5 score was not improved in either group. In group A, the IIEF5 score dropped from 13.66+/-4.97 to 11.93+/-6.14 after 12 weeks (p=0.072). Group B showed a decline in the IIEF5 score from 13.19+/-5.91 to 12.45+/-6.38 (p=0.299). Although group B showed a relatively smaller decrease in the IIEF5 score, the difference between the two groups was not significant (p=0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin monotherapy and combination therapy with solifenacin did not improve erectile function despite improvements in voiding symptoms and QoL. The improvement in storage symptoms did not affect erectile function.
Aged ; Drug Therapy, Combination/methods ; Erectile Dysfunction/*drug therapy/etiology ; Humans ; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/complications/*drug therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Quality of Life ; Questionnaires ; Quinuclidines/*administration & dosage ; Rheology ; Sulfonamides/*administration & dosage ; Tetrahydroisoquinolines/*administration & dosage ; Treatment Outcome ; Urological Agents/*administration & dosage

PURPOSE: To evaluate how much the improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) affects sexual function and which storage symptoms or voiding symptoms have the greatest effect on sexual function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 187 patients were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either tamsulosin 0.2 mg (group A) or tamsulosin 0.2 mg and solifenacin 5 mg (group B). At 4 weeks and 12 weeks, the LUTS and sexual function of the patients were evaluated by use of the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) questionnaire, uroflowmetry, and bladder scan. RESULTS: Both groups A and B showed statistically significant improvements in IPSS, OABSS, and quality of life (QoL). Group A showed improved maximum flow rate, mean flow rate, and residual urine volume by time. Group B did not show an improvement in flow rate or residual urine volume but total voiding volume increased with time. The IIEF5 score was not improved in either group. In group A, the IIEF5 score dropped from 13.66+/-4.97 to 11.93+/-6.14 after 12 weeks (p=0.072). Group B showed a decline in the IIEF5 score from 13.19+/-5.91 to 12.45+/-6.38 (p=0.299). Although group B showed a relatively smaller decrease in the IIEF5 score, the difference between the two groups was not significant (p=0.696). CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin monotherapy and combination therapy with solifenacin did not improve erectile function despite improvements in voiding symptoms and QoL. The improvement in storage symptoms did not affect erectile function.
Aged ; Drug Therapy, Combination/methods ; Erectile Dysfunction/*drug therapy/etiology ; Humans ; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms/complications/*drug therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Quality of Life ; Questionnaires ; Quinuclidines/*administration & dosage ; Rheology ; Sulfonamides/*administration & dosage ; Tetrahydroisoquinolines/*administration & dosage ; Treatment Outcome ; Urological Agents/*administration & dosage