Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men

Citation
T. Schneider et al., Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men, UROLOGY, 57(2), 2001, pp. 314-318
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
UROLOGY
ISSN journal
00904295 → ACNP
Volume
57
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
314 - 318
Database
ISI
SICI code
0090-4295(200102)57:2<314:DPSIYM>2.0.ZU;2-S
Abstract
Objectives. Young men often complain about problems with condom use, but ve ry little information exists about the influence of men's age on penile dim ensions and therefore on possible problems in the use of the most important means of contraception in the young. Methods. We performed a prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 men, 18 to 19 years old (group A), and in 32 men, 40 to 68 years old (grou p B). We measured penile length and width in the flaccid state and after vi sual and manual self-stimulation in group A and after intracavernous inject ion of prostaglandin E-1 in group B. Results. The mean flaccid length in group A (8.60 cm) and group B (9.22 cm) was significantly different. The mean erect length in group A (14.48 cm) a nd group B (14.18 cm) was not significantly different. The mean flaccid wid th at the base was significantly different between group A (3.08 cm) and gr oup B (2.87 cm), but the mean flaccid width at the glans was not (group A, 3.02 cm; group B, 3.01 cm). The mean erect width at the base (group A. 3.95 cm; group B, 3.50 cm) and the erect width of the glans (group A, 3.49 cm; group B, 3.32 cm) were significantly different. Conclusions. Our assumption that the problems young men experience with con dom use may be because of smaller penises could not be proved. To address t he problems in condom use in younger men, a larger variety of condom sizes and better information about condom use may be useful. UROLOGY 57: 314-318, 2001. (C) 2001, Elsevier Science Inc.