What are the FDA warnings or recalls related to penile implants or augmentation products?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal action on penile implants and augmentation spans product recalls of implanted devices, formal guidance on regulatory pathways, direct warnings to practitioners marketing unapproved augmentation claims, and public alerts about unsafe injectable materials like liquid silicone; recent FDA recall notices for inflatable prostheses and agency guidance and warning letters make clear that both approved implants and rogue augmentation practices are under active oversight [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Recent device recalls: inflatable penile prostheses pulled or corrected
The FDA’s public recall database lists Class II device recalls for inflatable penile prostheses, including named entries such as the Titan OTR Inflatable Penile Prosthesis and the AMS 700 Inflatable Penile Prosthesis, meaning manufacturers initiated corrective actions for identified risks or labeling/manufacturing issues rather than an outright Class I “dangerous” recall (Titan OTR page and AMS 700 recall listings) [1] [2].
2. What “Class II recall” signifies and why it matters
A Class II recall classification signals that use of the device may cause temporary or reversible adverse health consequences, or where the probability of serious adverse events is remote; the presence of multiple Class II recall entries for penile prostheses reflects device-specific failures, manufacturing defects, or labeling problems rather than a wholesale ban, and those entries are published in the FDA’s recall database for transparency and follow-up (recall listings) [1] [2].
3. Regulatory guardrails: guidance on premarket data and device classification
The FDA has issued guidance documents defining the information expected in 510(k) premarket notifications for penile rigidity implants and separate special controls for external penile rigidity devices, distinguishing semirigid and inflatable implants and setting pathways and performance expectations for manufacturers seeking market clearance (Guidance for Content of Premarket Notifications; External Penile Rigidity Devices guidance) [3] [5].
4. Warnings to providers and enforcement against deceptive augmentation claims
The agency has used warning letters to challenge practitioners and firms making unapproved claims for devices marketed for penile enlargement or systemic effects (for example, claims of increased testosterone or “cellular repair”), explicitly stating such claims fall outside approved device classifications and can trigger enforcement because they indicate intended treatment of disease or unapproved uses (FDA warning letter to Dr. Joel Kaplan) [4].
5. Non‑approved injectables: FDA and clinical literature flag liquid silicone and fillers as dangerous
Beyond surgically implanted prostheses, the FDA and clinical reviews caution strongly against injectable “pharmaceutical‑grade silicone” or liquid injectable silicone for penile augmentation, noting these are often not FDA‑approved dermal fillers and have been associated in the literature with high rates of pain, swelling, granuloma, ulceration and need for surgical excision; multiple clinical reviews and specialty sites summarize significant morbidity from off‑label silicone injections (Rejuvall summary on injectable silicone; surgical complication data and reviews) [6] [7] [8].
6. Real‑world adverse events and device performance surveillance
Postmarket reporting systems—including the MAUDE database analyzed in peer‑reviewed studies—show that the most frequent complications tied to penile prostheses are infection, erosion, pain and perforation, and that device survivorship has improved with design changes though mechanical failure and revisions still occur, which informs both the FDA’s recall scrutiny and clinicians’ counseling of patients (MAUDE analysis; systematic reviews of implant safety and mechanical failure literature) [9] [10] [11].
7. Alternative perspectives and potential agendas in reporting
Manufacturers may frame Class II recalls as limited corrective steps to preserve confidence, while advocacy or aesthetic clinics sometimes understate risks to promote demand; conversely, clinicians and urologic societies emphasize careful patient selection and approved-device use—readers should note that FDA guidance and warning letters aim to balance access to technology with strict limits on unproven enlargement claims and unsafe injectables, and that public recall pages do not always capture the full clinical nuance of why an action was taken (recall pages; FDA guidance; warning letter) [1] [3] [4].
8. Gaps in the public record and where oversight continues
The FDA’s public documents enumerate recalls, guidance and enforcement actions and peer‑reviewed analyses summarize adverse events, but publicly available records do not always provide granular, case‑level clinical outcomes for every recalled lot or every adverse event; therefore, while the regulatory posture is clear—approved prostheses are monitored and non‑approved injectables are actively warned against—some clinical detail and manufacturer follow‑up data may require direct queries to the FDA, manufacturers, or published clinical series for a complete picture (FDA recall/guidance pages; MAUDE studies) [1] [3] [9].