In 1947, Quérnu and Pérol6 described 6 penile paraffinoma cases outside the United States. Patients had petroleum jelly injections that eventuated in penile paraffinomas, and all of them lost the ability to attain an erection.6 Four years later, Bradley and Ehrgott7 described a case of penile paraffinoma likely caused by application of paraffin in association with occupational exposure. In 1956, May and Pickering8 cited a case of penile paraffinoma affecting the entire penile shaft in which the patient had undergone paraffin injection 7 years prior to treat premature ejaculation. Unfortunately, the injection resulted in a painful and unsatisfactory erection without resolution of premature ejaculation.8 Lee et al9 analyzed 26 cases of penile paraffinomas that occurred from 1981 to 1993. They found that all patients underwent injections of paraffin or petroleum jelly performed by nonmedical personnel with the predominant goal of enhancing penis size. Within 18.5 months of injection, 19 patients already experienced tenderness at the injection site. The remaining 7 patients experienced penile skin discoloration and abnormal contouring of the penis. Biopsy specimens revealed hyaline necrosis of subcutaneous adipose septa, cystlike spaces throughout involved tissue, and macrophages engulfing adipose tissue were found near blood vessels.9 In 2007, Eandi et al4 reported a case of penile paraffinoma with a 40-year delay of onset. Four years later, Manny et al10 reported penile paraffinomas in 3 Laotian men who injected a mineral oil.
Currently, paraffin injections are uncommon but still are being performed in some countries in Eastern Europe and the Far East11; they rarely are reported in the United States. Injections can occur in unusual sites such as the knee, and paraffinomas can develop many years after the procedure.12 Additionally, paraffinomas can obscure proper diagnosis of carcinomas, as described by Lee et al13 in a case in which a cervical paraffin injection confounded the diagnosis of a thyroid tumor. Furthermore, these injections usually are performed by nonmedical personnel and typically are repeated multiple times to reach cosmetic goals, rendering the patient vulnerable to early complications including allergic reactions, paraphimosis, infection, and inflammation.3
The clinical presentation of a penile paraffinoma may be a mimicker of several different entities, which are important to consider in the evaluation of a presenting patient. Infectious etiologies must be considered including lymphogranuloma venereum, granuloma inguinale, atypical mycobacteria, lupus vulgaris, and sexually transmitted infections. Importantly, neoplasms must be ruled out including squamous cell carcinoma, soft tissue sarcomas, melanoma, adenocarcinoma, or metastasis. Lymphedema, prior surgical procedures, trauma, and inflammatory etiologies also are in the differential diagnosis.14 Nonetheless, physicians must have a high clinical suspicion in the evaluation of a possible paraffinoma, as patients may not be forthcoming with relevant clinical history regarding a prior injection to the affected site, particularly if the injection occurred many years ago. As such, the patient may not consider this history relevant or may not even remember the event occurred, as was observed in our case. Furthermore, embarrassment, social taboo, and stigma may be associated with the behavior of undergoing injections in nonclinical settings without medical supervision.15
Patients may be motivated to undergo dangerous procedures to potentially alter their appearance due to perceived enhanced sexual ability, influence by loved ones, cultural rituals, and societal pressure.15,16 Furthermore, patients may not be aware of the material being injected or the volume. Given that these injections often are used with the goal of cosmetic enhancement, biopsies in cosmetically sensitive areas must be given careful consideration, and a thorough clinical history must support the decision to pursue a biopsy to obtain a definitive diagnosis.
The definitive diagnosis of a paraffinoma is determined by histopathology. However, the use of imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography have been employed to delineate the extent of involvement. Imaging studies allow for surgical planning and may assist in narrowing a differential diagnosis.17 Currently, wide and complete surgical resection is the only definitive treatment of paraffinomas, including penile paraffinomas, as there is no evidence of spontaneous regression.3 A report of a reconstructive surgery involving penile resurfacing without T-style anastomosis has been found effective at preventing necrosis of the ventral penile skin. Not all paraffinomas behave similarly, and there is no reliable method to determine which paraffinoma may possess a more aggressive clinical course compared to those which have a more indolent course.18 As such, early detection is critical in the management of paraffinomas, especially in anatomic locations where tissue preservation is of utmost importance. In the case of a large penile paraffinoma with the ability to destroy vital urologic and reproductive function, physicians must consider prevention of recurrent episodes through suppression of inflammation and fibrosis with doxycycline and nicotinamide.19 Other medical treatments reported with varying success include corticosteroids, imiquimod, and isotretinoin.19-24 Employing adjunctive medical treatment may decrease the size of the mass, reducing the surgical defect size and preserving tissue vitality. Ultimately, the most crucial aspect in treatment is prevention, as injection of foreign materials elicits a foreign body response and can lead to notable morbidity.