Surgical · Cosmetic · FDA-cleared for a narrower use than commonly marketed
Penuma® Penile Implant
— what it is, and why it’s controversial
Penuma® is a soft silicone implant placed beneath the penile skin to enhance the size and appearance of the flaccid penis. It’s real, it’s FDA-cleared, and it has genuine published outcome data — but it also has a documented history of regulatory disputes, a 2022 class-action lawsuit, and a mixed track record that’s worth understanding fully before considering it.
Overview
What Penuma® actually is
Penuma® is a soft, curved silicone sleeve implanted subcutaneously (beneath the skin, not into the erectile tissue itself) along the shaft of the penis. It’s intended for men with normal erectile function who want to enhance the flaccid appearance and size of the penis — it is explicitly not a treatment for erectile dysfunction.
Developed and patented by Dr. James Elist, a Beverly Hills urologist, Penuma® is marketed as “the first FDA-cleared penile implant for cosmetic enhancement.” That claim is accurate but incomplete in a way that matters — see the regulatory history below.
Published outcome data shows it reliably increases flaccid length and girth. It does not increase erect length, something every candidate should understand clearly before proceeding.
A 2024 study following patients at least 6 months post-surgery found an average flaccid length increase of 2.5cm (44%) and girth increase of 3.1cm (32%), with 82% of patients satisfied or very satisfied and 75% saying they’d undergo the surgery again.
Why it’s controversial — the regulatory history
What “FDA-cleared” actually means here
This is the heart of the controversy, and it’s worth understanding precisely rather than taking the marketing claim at face value.
Device patented
Dr. James Elist patented the Penuma device design.
Initial FDA clearance — via an unrelated predicate device
The initial 510(k) FDA application analogized Penuma to a silicone implant used in reconstructive ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery — not a device previously cleared for penile use. This clearance pathway is central to later legal disputes over what was actually authorized.
A more specific FDA clearance for this use, and a class-action lawsuit — the same year
Published research describes the device receiving 510(k) clearance specifically for cosmetic penile enhancement in May 2022. That same year, a proposed class-action lawsuit alleged that the device had been marketed for years as “FDA-cleared for cosmetic penis enlargement” for healthy men, when the earlier clearance was actually for general “cosmetic correction of soft tissue deformities” — not specifically validated for enlarging normal, healthy anatomy.
FDA adverse event reports: the FDA’s MAUDE database contains documented complications including implant failure, nerve damage, scar tissue, deformity, numbness, sexual dysfunction, and implant pain — some tied to lawsuits against the manufacturer.
A retracted paper: a 2021 academic paper related to penile enhancement technology was retracted in 2022 following a contempt judgment in ongoing intellectual property litigation between Dr. Elist and a competing device developer — a reminder that some of the published literature in this specific niche has been shaped by active commercial and legal disputes between competing implant makers.
Initial professional skepticism: when first introduced, many urologists were openly doubtful of the concept — one of Elist’s own early colleagues recalled others saying an implant like this simply “wasn’t going to work.”
Real published outcomes
What the data actually shows
Two separate published studies give genuine outcome data — and both show that surgical technique significantly affects results.
Complications — and how much surgical technique matters
Seroma requiring drainage: 12–27% depending on the study
Revision surgery: 2% (lateral scrotal approach) vs. 13% (infrapubic approach)
Implant removal: 6% (lateral scrotal) vs. 21% (infrapubic) — a substantial difference
Reasons for removal reported in one series: pain, dissatisfaction, erosion, and skin complications
The gap between surgical approaches (lateral scrotal vs. infrapubic incision) is large enough that which technique your surgeon uses may matter as much as the decision to have the procedure at all.
Is it right for you?
Who is considered a candidate
Men with normal erectile function who want flaccid appearance and size enhancement specifically
Men who understand and accept that erect length will not change
Men who have researched the surgeon’s specific technique and experience, given how much this affects outcomes
Men who accept a meaningful risk of revision or removal surgery, which varies significantly by technique
Men who have reviewed the regulatory and legal history honestly, not just marketing materials
Common questions
Frequently asked questions
Is Penuma® actually FDA-approved for enlarging a normal penis?
It’s complicated, and this is exactly what the 2022 class-action lawsuit centers on. The device does have FDA 510(k) clearance, including a more specific clearance for cosmetic penile enhancement reported in 2022. However, the lawsuit alleges the earlier, broader marketing claims misrepresented what the original clearance actually covered. Ask your provider directly to explain the current clearance and how it applies to your specific situation.
Will Penuma® make my erections bigger?
No. Published outcome data consistently shows no increase in erect length. Penuma® enhances flaccid appearance and girth only. This is a purely cosmetic device for men who already have normal erectile function — it is not an ED treatment and does not change erect size.
Why does surgical technique matter so much?
Published data shows a lateral scrotal incision approach had meaningfully lower revision (2% vs. 13%) and removal (6% vs. 21%) rates compared to the traditional infrapubic approach in one study. Ask your surgeon specifically which technique they use and why, and how many Penuma® procedures they’ve personally performed.
What if I need the implant removed?
Removal rates range from 6% to 21% depending on surgical technique, with reasons including pain, dissatisfaction, and erosion. Documented FDA adverse event reports include cases where removal was followed by additional complications like swelling, numbness, and loss of length — discuss this possibility candidly with your surgeon before proceeding, including what removal surgery itself involves.
Related
Other options to consider
Considering Penuma®?
Given the surgical and regulatory complexity here, an in-depth consultation is essential. Search our directory or ask in the forum first.
Key sources: Salkowski & Levine, “Outcomes and patient satisfaction after Penuma silicone implant surgery via two surgical approaches,” Therapeutic Advances in Urology (2024) · “Penuma Penile Implant Neither Safe Nor Effective for Advertised Purpose, Class Action Alleges” (2022) · “Contempt judgment in penile implant spat leads to retraction,” Retraction Watch (2022) · FDA MAUDE Adverse Event Database — Penuma implant reports
This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Always consult a licensed physician before pursuing any surgical procedure. Penuma® is a registered trademark of International Medical Devices, Inc. PhallusMD does not endorse Penuma®, any specific surgeon, or guarantee clinical outcomes. Legal claims referenced are allegations from public court filings, not established facts of wrongdoing.
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write one.