Fact check: How effective are vacuum erection devices for penis size increase?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the scientific analyses, vacuum erection devices (VEDs) are largely ineffective for permanent penis size increase. The most direct study on this topic found that vacuum treatment resulted in only a 0.3 cm mean increase in penile length after 6 months, with an efficacy rate of approximately 10% and patient satisfaction of just 30% ^[1].

In contrast, penile extender devices show significantly better results for size increase. Studies demonstrate that penile extenders can achieve a mean increase in flaccid penile length of 1.3 cm after 1 month and 1.7 cm after 3 months, with stretched penile length increases of 0.6 cm and 1.4 cm respectively ^[2]. Post-prostatectomy patients using penile traction therapy devices showed even more promising results with a mean increase of 1.6 cm in penile length ^[3].

VEDs are primarily designed and effective for treating erectile dysfunction, not size enhancement. They work by increasing blood flow and oxygenation to the penis and are particularly useful for penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy ^{[4] [5] [6]}. For erectile dysfunction treatment, VEDs show much higher satisfaction rates, with 82% patient satisfaction and 87% partner satisfaction reported ^[7].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial distinctions that medical professionals would emphasize:

• Temporary vs. permanent effects: VEDs can make the penis appear larger temporarily, but this effect is not permanent and using them too often or too long can damage elastic tissue in the penis, leading to less firm erections ^[8].
• Medical vs. cosmetic applications: The primary medical benefit of VEDs is for penile rehabilitation after prostatectomy and erectile dysfunction treatment, not cosmetic enhancement ^{[4] [5] [6]}.
• Alternative methods: The analyses reveal that there is little scientific support for nonsurgical methods to enlarge the penis, and most techniques do not work and can cause damage ^[8]. This broader context suggests that expectations for any non-surgical enlargement method should be significantly tempered.
• Combination therapies: VEDs can be used effectively in combination with other treatments, such as phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, particularly for erectile dysfunction rather than size enhancement ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may lead to misinformation by framing VEDs as a viable option for penis size increase. This framing could benefit:

• Medical device manufacturers who market VEDs with ambiguous claims about "enhancement"
• Online retailers and supplement companies who profit from men's insecurities about penis size
• Unregulated wellness industries that promote non-evidence-based treatments

The question fails to acknowledge that most scientific evidence shows VEDs are ineffective for permanent size increase and that their primary validated use is for erectile dysfunction treatment. The medical consensus, as reflected in the analyses, is that most non-surgical penis enlargement techniques do not work and can cause damage ^[8], which represents crucial information missing from the original framing.

The question also doesn't address the potential risks, including tissue damage from overuse, which could mislead users into believing VEDs are a safe, effective solution for size concerns when the evidence suggests otherwise.