Global trends in penile aesthetic and sexual health procedures: a Google Trends analysis (2004–2024)

Tendencias globales en procedimientos estéticos y de salud sexual masculina: un análisis de Google Trends (2004--2024)

Background: Public interest in male sexual health, particularly penile aesthetic and enhancement procedures, has evolved over time under the influence of medical and societal factors. This study uses Google Trends data from 2004 to 2024 to investigate public search trends. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using Google Trends to assess global search interest in penile aesthetic procedures over a 20-year period. The timeframe was divided into three intervals to evaluate temporal patterns. Search terms were selected via expert input and literature review. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Interest in traditional terms like “Penis Enlargement” and “Penis Exercises” declined significantly, while more recent treatment terms such as “Penis Filler” and “Penis platelet-rich plasma (PRP)” showed marked increases (p < 0.001). “Penis Implants” remained stable (p = 0.523). Cost-related queries increased significantly, and geographic trends varied across regions. Conclusions: Public interest has shifted toward non-surgical penile enhancement methods, with a notable rise in cost awareness. These findings underscore the growing role of digital platforms in health-seeking behavior.

Resumen

Antecedentes: El interés público por la salud sexual masculina, particularmente en los procedimientos estéticos y de aumento del pene, ha evolucionado con el tiempo bajo la influencia de factores médicos y sociales. Este estudio utiliza datos de Google Trends desde 2004 hasta 2024 para investigar las tendencias de búsqueda del público. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo utilizando Google Trends para evaluar el interés global en procedimientos estéticos del pene durante un período de 20 años. El período se dividió en tres intervalos para evaluar los patrones temporales. Los términos de búsqueda se seleccionaron mediante aportes de expertos y revisión bibliográfica. Los análisis estadísticos incluyeron análisis de varianza (ANOVA) y pruebas de Kruskal-Wallis. Resultados: El interés por términos tradicionales como “Agrandamiento de pene” y “Ejercicios para el pene” disminuyó significativamente, mientras que tratamientos más recientes como “Relleno del pene” y plasma rico en plaquetas (PRP) del pene” mostraron aumentos marcados (p < 0.001). El término “Implantes del pene” se mantuvo estable (p = 0.523). Las búsquedas relacionadas con el costo aumentaron significativamente, y las tendencias geográficas variaron entre regiones. Conclusiones: El interés del público se ha desplazado hacia métodos no quirúrgicos de aumento del pene, con un notable aumento en la conciencia sobre los costos. Estos hallazgos subrayan el papel creciente de las plataformas digitales en el comportamiento de búsqueda de salud.

Male sexual health; Penile filler; Penile PRP; Google Trends

Palabras Clave

Salud sexual masculina; Relleno peneano; PRP del pene; Google Trends

[1] Nuti SV, Wayda B, Ranasinghe I, Wang S, Dreyer RP, Chen SI, et al. The use of Google Trends in health care research: a systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2014; 9: e109583.

[2] Priviero FB, Leite R, Webb RC, Teixeira CE. Neurophysiological basis of penile erection. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. 2007; 28: 751–755.

[3] Shaher H, Fathi A, Elbashir S, Abdelbaki SA, Soliman T. Is platelet rich plasma safe and effective in treatment of erectile dysfunction? Randomized controlled study. Urology. 2023; 175: 114–119.

[4] Lu Z, Lin G, Reed-Maldonado A, Wang C, Lee YC, Lue TF. Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave treatment improves erectile function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Urology. 2017; 71: 223–233.

[5] Xing MH, Hou SW, Raheem OA. Aesthetic penile augmentation procedures: a comprehensive and current perspective. Current Urology Reports. 2022; 23: 355–361.

[6] Vasconcelos P, Carrito ML, Quinta-Gomes AL, Patrão AL, Nóbrega CA, Costa PA, et al. Associations between sexual health and well-being: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2024; 102: 873–887D.

[7] Bohren MA, Vazquez Corona M, Odiase OJ, Wilson AN, Sudhinaraset M, Diamond-Smith N, et al. Strategies to reduce stigma and discrimination in sexual and reproductive healthcare settings: a mixed-methods systematic review. PLOS Global Public Health. 2022; 2: e0000582.

[8] Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. Healthcare. 2021; 9: 1740.

[9] Rasmussen S, Balasubramaniam K, Jarbøl DE, Søndergaard J, Haastrup PF. Socioeconomic status and barriers for contacting the general practitioner when bothered by erectile dysfunction: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Family Practice. 2020; 21: 166.

[10] Bellaire CP, Rutland JW, Sayegh F, Pesce RR, Tijerina JD, Taub PJ. Going viral: a systematic review of Google Trends in plastic surgery and a recommended framework for its use. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2021; 41: NP2034–NP2043.

[11] Wilson SC, Daar DA, Sinno S, Levine SM. Public interest in breast augmentation: analysis and implications of Google Trends data. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2018; 42: 648–655.

[12] Ergul A, Caglar U, Yuksel B, Ozgor F. Using Google Trends for evaluation of public interest in female genital aesthetic procedures. Dermatologic Surgery. 2023; 49: 762–765.

[13] Brodeur A, Clark AE, Fleche S, Powdthavee N. COVID-19, lockdowns and well-being: evidence from Google Trends. Journal of Public Economics. 2021; 193: 104346.

[14] Abou Chawareb E, Banton J, Hammad MAM, Lumbiganon S, Azad B, Miller J, et al. Unveiling consumer interest and regional disparities: comparative analysis of online search trends for penile aesthetic procedures. Sexual Medicine. 2025; 13: qfaf013.

[15] H Hammad MAM, Miller J, Sultan MI, Abou Chawareb E, Nakamura HS, Martinez JR, et al. Rising public interest in stem cell therapy for erectile dysfunction: an analysis of public perception and a review of the literature. Therapeutic Advances in Urology. 2025; 17: 17562872251322651.

[16] Panunzio A, Labate C, Zacheo F, Orlando R, Rizzo FL, Porcaro AB, et al. Platelet-rich plasma intracavernosal injections for the treatment of primary organic erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary controlled studies. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2024; 36: 562–571.

[17] Du S, Sun S, Guo F, Liu H. Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a meta-analysis of controlled and single-arm trials. PLOS ONE. 2024; 19: e0313074.

[18] Clavijo RI, Kohn TP, Kohn JR, Ramasamy R. Effects of low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy on erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2017; 14: 27–35.

[19] Kwak TI, Oh M, Kim JJ, Moon du G. The effects of penile girth enhancement using injectable hyaluronic acid gel, a filler. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2011; 8: 3407–3413.

[20] Matz EL, Pearlman AM, Terlecki RP. Safety and feasibility of platelet rich fibrin matrix injections for treatment of common urologic conditions. Investigative and Clinical Urology. 2018; 59: 61–65.

[21] García Gómez B, Alonso Isa M, García Rojo E, Fiorillo A, Romero Otero J. Penile length augmentation surgical and non-surgical approaches for aesthetical purposes. International Journal of Impotence Research. 2022; 34: 332–336.

[22] Clerico C, Lari A, Mojallal A, Boucher F. Anatomy and aesthetics of the labia minora: the ideal vulva? Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2017; 41: 714–719.

[23] Scherzer ND, Dick B, Gabrielson AT, Alzweri LM, Hellstrom WJG. Penile prosthesis complications: planning, prevention, and decision making. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 2019; 7: 349–359.

[24] Chierigo F, Capogrosso P, Dehò F, Pozzi E, Schifano N, Belladelli F, et al. Long-term follow-up after penile prosthesis implantation-survival and quality of life outcomes. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2019; 16: 1827–1833.

[25] Manfredi C, Fortier É, Faix A, Martínez-Salamanca JI. Penile implant surgery satisfaction assessment. The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2021; 18: 868–874.

[26] Montague DK. Penile prosthesis implantation in the era of medical treatment for erectile dysfunction. The Urologic Clinics of North America. 2011; 38: 217–225.

[27] Rao SV, Kaul P, Newby LK, Lincoff AM, Hochman J, Harrington RA, et al. Poverty, process of care, and outcome in acute coronary syndromes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2003; 41: 1948–1954.

[28] Goldman AS, Guisinger VH, Aikins M, Amarillo ML, Belizario VY, Garshong B. National mass drug administration costs for lymphatic filariasis elimination. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2007; 1: e67.

[29] Gupta N, Naroo SA. Factors influencing patient choice of refractive surgery or contact lenses and choice of centre. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye. 2006; 29: 17–23.

[30] Zheng Y, Huang Z, Jiang T. Will the economic recession inhibit the out-of-pocket payment willingness for health care? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17: 713.