What are long‑term sexual function outcomes after reduction corporoplasty?
Executive summary
Reduction corporoplasty and related corporoplasty techniques—used to treat extreme penile girth increases, curvature and other phallic deformities—are reported in the literature to preserve or restore sexual function in the small number of published cases and series, but the evidence base is limited to case reports, small cohorts and specialty-supplement reports rather than large, prospective trials [1] [2] [3] [4]. Where longer-term follow-up exists for corporoplasty variants (plication/shortening), most patients report maintained erectile function and the ability to have intercourse despite some objective shortening or transient sensory changes [5] [6] [7].
1. What the published outcomes actually show: intact erections in case reports and small series
The iconic reports of reduction corporoplasty describe patients with aneurysmal or acquired enlargement of the corpora cavernosa who underwent tissue excision and reshaping and subsequently reported preserved erectile rigidity and absence of aneurysmal recurrence—outcomes documented in the original case write‑ups and surgical series [1] [2] [8]. A handful of additional procedural descriptions and conference abstracts report satisfactory intercourse and erectile function on follow-up, sometimes noting adjunctive pharmacologic support (for example, sildenafil use reported post‑op in a case series) [9] [10].
2. Long‑term data come mainly from corporoplasty variants for curvature, not reduction for girth
When the question is broadened to corporoplasty for congenital or Peyronie’s curvature (plication/shortening techniques), the literature offers longer follow‑up using validated instruments: multi‑decade cohorts found that although penile shortening is common (reported in about a quarter of patients in some series), this shortening “did not result in problems during sexual intercourse,” and sensory changes tended to resolve within a year [5] [6]. Recent single‑center analyses of modified shortening corporoplasty reported improved sexual life scores at 12 months using IIEF and SEP questionnaires, though some patients remained dissatisfied with postoperative length [7].
3. Complications and functional trade‑offs that are reported
Published series note predictable trade‑offs: penile shortening after straightening/shortening corporoplasty is common and occasionally linked to dissatisfaction [5] [7], and transient reduction of glans sensitivity occurred in about 8% in one long‑term plication cohort but resolved within about 11 months on average [5]. Reduction corporoplasty reports emphasize the need to weigh length preservation against deformity correction and stress that surgeons should match technique to patient goals; that judgment is framed as a matter of surgeon experience and individual expectations because comparative outcome data are lacking [3].
4. Strengths and limits of the evidence—why firm conclusions are premature
The strongest practical claim supported by the literature is that carefully performed corporoplasty procedures can correct deformity while preserving erectile function in individual patients and small series [1] [2] [3]. The major limitation is scale: reduction corporoplasty for macropenis or aneurysmal dilatation is rare and evidence is dominated by case reports and small institutional series or abstracts [8] [4] [10]. Standardized, long‑term outcome measures (prospective IIEF data, partner‑reported outcomes, complication registries) are present for corporoplasty in curvature cases but scarce for purely reductive procedures, limiting the ability to generalize.
5. Practical reading for patients and clinicians—balanced takeaways
For patients with disabling girth discrepancies, aneurysmal dilations, or curvature who are considering reduction corporoplasty, the published record supports the possibility of preserved erectile function and satisfactory intercourse in many cases, but careful informed consent is essential because objective shortening, transient altered sensation and variable satisfaction are reported and because high‑quality comparative data are absent [1] [5] [3] [7]. Surgeons and patients should discuss realistic expectations, the specific technical approach, and the limited size of the evidence base; the decision will often rest on individual anatomy, surgeon expertise and the patient’s treatment goals rather than robust population‑level outcome data [3].