ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Penile length–somatometric parameters relationship in

healthy Egyptian men
M. E. Shalaby1, A. E.-R. M. Almohsen1, A. R. El Shahid1, M. T. Abd Al-Sameaa1 & T. Mostafa2
1 Dermatology, Venereology & Andrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt;
2 Andrology and Sexology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Keywords
Glans penis—index finger—penis—somato-
metrics—testis
Correspondence
Prof. Dr Taymour Mostafa, Department of
Andrology & Sexology, Faculty of Medicine,
Cairo University, Cairo 11562, Egypt.
Tel.: +2 01005150297;
E-mail: taymour1155@link.net
Accepted: February 6, 2014
doi: 10.1111/and.12275
Summary
This study aimed to assess the penile length–somatometric parameters relation-
ship in healthy Egyptian men. Two thousand physically normal men (22–
40 years) were subjected to measurement of stretched penile length, glans
penis, testis size, index finger, weight, height, span, body mass index (BMI),
waist circumference, hip circumference and waist/hip ratio. The mean stretched
penile length of the studied subjects was 13.84  1.35 cm (range 12–19 cm),
and the mean glans penis length was 2.6  0.4 cm (range 1.7–3.8 cm). Penile
length demonstrated positive significant correlation with glans penis length,
index finger length, BMI and significant negative correlation with waist/hip
ratio. On the other hand, penile length demonstrated nonsignificant correlation
with age, weight, height, waist circumference, span or testicular size. It is con-
cluded that the penile length-somatometric parameters relationship in healthy
Egyptian men is mostly related to glans penis and index finger lengths.

absence of universally acceptable parameters and standar-

Introduction
Penile size is often associated with much interest in dif-
ferent cultures throughout history. Penile size has been a
mystical topic, and a subject that was represented in art-
work by pre-historic cave dwellers where various phallus-
shaped posts were created by inhabitants of ancient
Greece, Rome and Turkey (Mattelaer, 2008). Larger
penile sizes were perceived to validate sexual function and
fertility potential, although a considerable percentage of
women attached substantial importance to the size of the
male sexual organ (Francken et al., 2002).
Measurement of the penile length is necessary in some
situations; as in diagnosing micropenis, malformed geni-
talia, defining situations requiring penile-lengthening,
evaluating medical or surgical penile interventions (Senge-
zer et al., 2002). Also, measurement of penile length has
been raised to address the concerns of men regarding
their normality in response to relative dissatisfaction with
phallus dimensions requesting surgical enhancement
(Spyropoulos et al., 2005; Oderda & Gontero, 2011).
Chen et al. (2000) stated that penile length was defined
as the linear distance between the symphysis pubis to the
tip of the glans penis in the flaccid state. Previously
published surveys in different populations revealed the
dised criteria for the proper size of the external genital
organs. This poses major difficulty in the counselling and/
or treatment of young adult men with worries of their sex-
ual inadequacy (Mondaini et al., 2002; Khan et al., 2012).
Several studies carried out in different countries have
investigated penile length and its relationship with soma-
tometric parameters such as height, weight, body mass
index (BMI), waist/hip ratio, index finger length and shoe
size with conflicting results (Ponchietti et al., 2001; Shah
& Christopher, 2002; Spyropoulos et al., 2002; Mehraban
et al., 2007).
This work aimed to assess penile length-somatometric
parameters relationship in a sample of physically normal
Egyptian men.
Materials and methods
This study included 2000 physically normal, Caucasian,
Egyptian men (21–40 years old) after IRB approval and
informed consent. Exclusion criteria included penile
anomalies, epispadius, hyospadius, penile curvature, Pyro-
nie’s disease and history of delayed puberty. They were
subjected to history taking, clinical as well as genital
examination.

402 © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

Andrologia 2015, 47, 402–406
M. E. Shalaby et al. Penile length–somatometric relationship

These subjects were subjected to: 4.00

1 Measurement of penile length using a tape while the
patient standing and the penis held parallel to the floor,
3.50
and the penis is stretched as comfortable as possible.

Glans penis length (cm)

2 Measurements of the glans penis length from the cor-
ona to the external urethral meatus. 3.00
3 Measurement of weight, height, BMI and the span.
4 Measurement of the waist circumference, hip circum- 2.50
ference and waist/hip circumference ratio. Measuring of
the waist circumference was carried out by tape measure
2.00
passing along the waist midway between the umbilicus
and symphisis pubis at the level of superior iliac spine.
Measuring hip circumference was carried out by the tape 1.50
placed firmly, ensuring its horizontal position, around the 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00
point with maximum circumference over the buttocks. Penile length (cm)
The participants should stand with feet fairly close
together with weight equally distributed on each leg. Fig. 1 Positive significant correlation between penile length (cm) and
5 Measurement of the extended index finger length. glans penis length (cm).

6 Measurements of the testicular volume by Prader’s

15.00
orchidometer then by ultrasound using the formula
length (L) 9 width (W) 9 height (H) 9 0.71 (Sakamoto
14.00
et al., 2007).
Index finger (cm)

13.00
Statistical analysis
12.00
Statistical package for social science version 18 (SPSS Inc.,
Chicago, IL, USA) was used. The data were represented
11.00
in terms of mean and standard deviation (SD). Analytical
tests used Pearson correlation (r) for correlations between 10.00
investigated variables. P < 0.05 was set as statistically sig-
nificant. 9.00

10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Results Penile length (cm)

The mean age of the investigated subjects was
31.6  4.2 years (range 21–40 years), stretched penile
length of the investigated subjects was 13.24  l.6 cm
(range 11.2–19 cm), glans penis 2.6  0.4 cm (range 1.7–
3.8 cm), index finger 12.1  0.8 cm (range 9.7–14.3 cm,
weight 89.2  10.8 kg (range 59–122 kg), height
1.74  7.8 cm (range 150–190 cm, BMI 29.5  3.77
(range 20.1–42.2), span 172.9  7.6 cm (range 148–
189 cm), waist 93.2  10.5 cm (range 70–115 cm), hip
circumference 94.4  11.4 cm (range 70–166 cm), testis
volume 21.1  3.57 ml (range 15–25 ml) and W/H ratio
0.99  0.09 (range 0.59–1.28).
Penile length demonstrated significant positive correla-
tion with glans penis length (r = 0.089, P = 0.001), index
finger length (r = 0.081; P = 0.001), BMI (r = 0.048;
P = 0.031) and significant negative correlation with waist/
hip ratio (r = 0.064, P = 0.007). On the other hand,
penile length demonstrated nonsignificant correlation with
age (r = 0.037, P = 101), weight (r = 0.025, P = 0.264),
Fig. 2 Positive significant correlation between penile length (cm) and
index finger (cm).
height (r = 0.013, P = 0.566), span (r = 0.017,
P = 0.451), waist circumference (r = 0.024, P = 0.277)
and testicular size (r = 0.017, P = 0.444) (Figs 1–4).
Discussion
Measuring the fully stretched penile length has been taken
as an indicator to erect length. In a large internet-based
survey of 52031 heterosexual men, most men rated their
penis as average sized (66%) where 12% rated their penis
as small one (Lever et al., 2006). The current study dem-
onstrated that the mean stretched penile length of this
sample of Egyptian men was 13.24  l.35 cm. Racial dif-
ferences as well as ethnic one were reported by different
authors (Wessells et al., 1996; Wylie & Eardley, 2007). On

© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH 403

Andrologia 2015, 47, 402–406
Penile length–somatometric relationship M. E. Shalaby et al.

45.00
stretched penis was 13.5  2.3 cm in 271 Jordanians.
Mehraban et al. (2007) demonstrated that the mean
40.00 flaccid fully stretched penis was 11.58  1.42 cm in 1500
Iranians. Wylie & Eardley (2007) compared the results of
35.00 12 studies conducted on different populations in several
countries concluding that the average size at the begin-
ning of puberty was 6 cm with adult size reached about
BMI

30.00
5 years later to a mean stretched flaccid value of 13.4 cm.
25.00 Khan et al. (2012) pointed in 610 British men that the
stretched penile length was 14.3  1.7 cm. In 253 Tanza-
20.00 nians, Chrouser et al. (2013) demonstrated a mean penile
length of 11.5  1.6 cm.
15.00 Anthropometric parameters such as weight, height, W/
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 H ratio are considered as bodily measures that display a
Penile length (cm) wide extent of normal variability along general population.
Many investigators tried to reveal the relationship between
Fig. 3 Positive significant correlation between penile length (cm) and the index finger, ring finger ratio and the masculine
BMI. aspect, sex role, semen quality (David et al., 2004; Andreas
& Johannes, 2008; Anthony et al., 2009). In the current
study, penile length demonstrated significant positive
relationship with glans penis length, index finger length,
1.50 BMI and significant negative correlation with W/H ratio.
In 52 Greek men, Spyropoulos et al. (2002) reported that
1.25 the age and somatometric parameters were not associated
significantly with the size of the genitalia, excluding the
index finger length that correlated significantly with the
W/H ratio

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
Penile length (cm)
Fig. 4 Negative significant correlation between penile length (cm)
and W/H ratio.
905 healthy Australian males aged 17–91 years, Bondil
et al. (1992) reported mean value of stretched flaccid
penile length of 16.74  1.9 cm. Da Ros et al. (1994)
reported mean value of stretched flaccid penile length of
14.52 cm in 150 normal adult Caucasians. Sutherland
et al. (1996) reported that the mean fully stretched penile
length in USA was 12.4  2.7 cm. In USA, Wessells et al.
(1996) prospectively measured flaccid and erect penile
dimensions in 80 physically normal men with a mean
stretched length 12.45 cm and erect length 12.9 cm. On
the other hand, Fujieda & Matsuura (1987) reported
mean value of stretched flaccid penile length of 9 cm
(range 6.6–12.2 cm) in healthy adult Japanese. Awwad
et al. (2005) reported a mean length of adult flaccid fully
dimensions of the flaccid, maximally stretched penis.
A study on 3300 young Italian men (17–19 years)
showed that penile measurements (length and circumfer-
ence at the mid-shaft) are correlated to height, weight
and BMI (Ponchietti et al., 2001). Spyropoulos et al.
(2002) in their study on 52 Greeks (19–38 years) revealed
that the glanular and total penile lengths are nonsignifi-
20.00 cantly correlated to age, weight, BMI and W/H ratio and
positively correlated to height.
In an Iranian study, there was a significant positive
relationship between penile length and subject’s height
and index finger length and negative relationship
between total penile length and weight. There was signif-
icant positive association between glans penis length and
subject’s height, index finger length. Age, height and
index finger length demonstrated significant and direct
effect on girth where W/H ratio was the only significant
and inverse effective factor on girth (Mehraban et al.,
2007).
In the current study, there was nonsignificant relation-
ship between penile length and height, span, weight.
Siminoski & Bain (1993) reported in their study on 63
healthy virilized men in Canada that penile length was
statistically related to both body height and foot length.
Sutherland et al. (1996) stated that the height may be the
primary indicators of penile size where Wessells et al.
(1996) reported that there is a positive correlation

404 © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

Andrologia 2015, 47, 402–406
M. E. Shalaby et al.
between height and penile length, and there is negative
correlation between weight and penile length.
There was weak significant relationship between mean
BMI and penile length. In 2276 Turkish men, S€ oylemez
et al. (2012) demonstrated weak positive correlation
between the mean circumference length and BMI with no
correlations between both the flaccid and stretched
lengths or BMI. They concluded that penile dimensions
were weakly correlated with somatometric parameters.
Rare reports had investigated penile length and testicu-
lar volume in adult men (Spyropoulos et al., 2002; Aslan
et al., 2011). In 1132 Turkish men, Aslan et al. (2011)
reported weak positive correlation between penile lengths
and mean testicular volume for flaccid or stretched penile
lengths. Similarly, weak positive correlations were found
between penile length (flaccid/stretched) and height,
weight, BMI respectively.
Generally, the diverse correlation between different
studies of the estimated items of penile length-somato-
metric parameters relationship is mostly due to the differ-
ent ethnic origins, magnitude of the study populations as
well the methodologies.
It is concluded that the penile length-somatometric
parameters relationship in healthy Egyptian men is mostly
related to the glans penis and index finger lengths.
References
Andreas S, Johannes H (2008) Second to fourth digit ratio
(2D:4D) of the right hand is associated with nociception
and augmenting. Pers Individ Dif 45:493–497.
Anthony F, Bogaert A, Catherine C, Fawcett B, Luanne K,
Jamieson A (2009) Attractiveness, body size, masculine sex
roles and 2D:4D ratios in men. Pers Individ Dif 47:273–
278.
Aslan Y, Atan A, Omur Aydın A, Nalcßacıoglu V, Tuncel A,
Kadıoglu A (2011) Penile length and somatometric
parameters: a study in healthy young Turkish men. Asian
J Androl 13:339–341.
Awwad Z, Abu-Hijleh M, Basri S, Shegam N, Murshidi M,
Ajlouni K (2005) Penile measurements in normal adult
Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int
J Impot Res 17:191–195.
Bondil P, Costa P, Daures JP, Louis JF, Navratil H (1992)
Clinical study of the longitudinal deformation of the
flaccid penis and of its variations with aging. Eur Urol
21:284–286.
Chen J, Gefen A, Greenstein A, Matzkin H, Elad D (2000)
Predicting penile size during erection. Int J Impot Res
12:328–333.
Chrouser K, Bazant E, Jin L, Kileo B, Plotkin M, Adamu T,
Curran K, Koshuma S (2013) Penile measurements in
tanzanian males: guiding circumcision device design and
supply forecasting. J Urol 190:544–550.
© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH
Andrologia 2015, 47, 402–406
Penile length–somatometric relationship
Da Ros C, Teloken C, Sogari P, Barcelos M, Silva F, Souto C
(1994) Caucasian penis. What is the normal size? J Urol
151:323A.
David AP, Steven JC, Robert JS, Donald HM (2004) Sex
hormones and finger length: what does 2D:4D indicate? Evol
Hum Behav 25:182–199.
Francken AB, van de Wiel HB, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz
WC (2002) What importance do women attribute to the
size of the penis? Eur Urol 42:426–431.
Fujieda K, Matsuura N (1987) Growth and maturation in the
male genitalia from birth to adolescence. II. Change of
penile length. Acta Paediatr Jpn 29:220–223.
Khan S, Somani B, Lam W, Donat R (2012) Establishing a
reference range for penile length in Caucasian British men: a
prospective study of 609 men. BJU Int 109:740–744.
Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA (2006) Does size matter?:
men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan.
Psychol Men Masc 7:129–143.
Mattelaer JJ (2008) Ancient Greece and Rome. The Phallus
in Art & Culture. History Office European Association
of Urology, 2nd Revised edn. Pana Editions, Kortrijk,
pp 8–31.
Mehraban D, Salehi M, Zayeri F (2007) Penile size and
somatometric parameters among Iranian normal adult men.
Int J Impot Res 19:303–309.
Mondaini N, Ponchietti R, Gontero P, Muir GH, Natali A,
Caldarera E, Biscioni S, Rizzo M (2002) Penile length is
normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures.
Int J Impot Res 14:283–286.
Oderda M, Gontero P (2011) Non-invasive methods of
penile lengthening: fact or fiction? BJU Int
107:1278–1282.
Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafe M, Di Loro F, Biscioni S,
Masieri L (2001) Penile length and circumference: a study
on 3,300 young Italian males. Eur Urol 39:183–186.
Sakamoto H, Saito K, Oohta M, Inoue K, Ogawa Y, Yoshida
H (2007) Testicular volume measurement: comparison of
ultrasonography, orchidometry, and water displacement.
Urology 69:152–157.
Sengezer M, Ozt€ urk S, Deveci M (2002) Accurate method for
determining functional penile length in Turkish young men.
Ann Plast Surg 48:381–385.
Shah J, Christopher N (2002) Can shoe size predict penile
length? BJU Int 90:586–587.
Siminoski K, Bain J (1993) The relationship among height,
penile length and foot size. Ann Sex Res 6:231–235.
S€
oylemez H, Atar M, Sancaktutar AA, Penbeg€ ul N, Bozkurt Y,
Onem K (2012) Relationship between penile size and
somatometric parameters in 2276 healthy young men. Int
J Impot Res 24:126–129.
Spyropoulos E, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Dellis A,
Bourounis M, Athanasiadis S (2002) Size of external
genital organs and somatometric parameters among
physically normal men younger than 40 years old.
Urology 60:485–491.
405
Penile length–somatometric relationship M. E. Shalaby et al.

Spyropoulos E, Christoforidis C, Borousas D, Mavrikos Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW (1996) Penile length in the
S, Bourounis M, Athanasiadis S (2005) Augmentation flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation.
phalloplasty surgery for penile dysmorphophobia in J Urol 156:995–997.
young adults: considerations regarding patient Wylie KR, Eardley I (2007) Penile size and the ‘small penis
selection, outcome evaluation and techniques applied. syndrome’. BJU Int 99:1449–1455.
Eur Urol 48:121–127.
Sutherland RS, Kogan BA, Baskin LS, Mevorach RA, Conte F,
Kaplan SL, Grumbach MM (1996) The effect of prepubertal
androgen exposure on adult penile length. J Urol 156:783–787.

406 © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

Andrologia 2015, 47, 402–406