(110) Evaluation of Penile Anatomy with MRI

Abstract Introduction Penile enlargement interventions have become increasingly popular in recent years. The common lengthening procedure involves dividing the fundiform and suspensory ligaments to enable the outward movement of the concealed part of the penis. Nevertheless, the outcomes of these surgeries can vary, and clear patient selection criteria have yet to be established. Objective In this study, our objective was to assess penile anatomy using MRI and to identify penile anatomical variations that can aid in the selection of patients for penile enlargement surgeries. Methods We conducted a retrospective study to assess penile anatomy in the context of lengthening surgery. Pelvic MRIs taken for various reasons were evaluated, and the angle between the penile shaft and the symphysis pubis (a), as well as the distance from the pubis to the skin (b), were measured. Patients were categorized into three groups (I, II, III) based on the highest point of the penis relative to the symphysis pubis in the sagittal plane (Figure 1). Results A total of 519 pelvic MRIs were initially reviewed, and 344 met the protocol's eligibility criteria. The participants had a median age of 53 years (IQR 38-65) and a median body mass index of 26 (IQR 24-29). The median angle between the penile shaft and pubis was 23 degrees, with a pubis-skin distance of 38 mm. Age was significantly correlated with the angle between the penile shaft and pubis (r=0.61, p0.01). Patient distribution across the groups based on penis highest point and pubis location was as follows: 36.1% in Group I, 47.4% in Group II, and 16.5% in Group III. Additionally, a significant positive correlation existed between BMI and suprapubic fat thickness (r=0.65, p0.01). The analysis unveiled noteworthy variations in penile anatomy, suprapubic fat distribution, peno-pubic angle, and the anchoring point of the fundiform ligament to the penis. Some penises also displayed an S-shaped anatomy. Figure 2 visually illustrates the range of observed penile anatomical variations. Conclusions Our study revealed a significant variability in penile anatomy. The distinctions among patients should be carefully considered when planning any penile enhancement intervention. Disclosure No.