Enel Health®Atlas
Sign in
Enel Health®Atlas
Browse libraries

Not medical advice. The Atlas is not a substitute for a clinician who can examine you.

P-Shot / PRP & Injectables

Priapus Shot (PRP), Glans Botox, and the Regenerative Marketplace

Evidence grade 2 of 5, Thin. Read how the Atlas grades evidence.

The written rationale for this grade is still being prepared.

FDA
No FDA approval for ED or enhancement; trademarked branded protocol

Reference only. Not medical advice.

What can go wrong

Generally low acute risk since the material is autologous: bruising, pain, swelling, transient nodules, and infection at injection sites. The larger harm is opportunity cost and expense, patients pay cash for an unproven therapy that may delay evidence-based ED workup (vascular, hormonal, psychogenic). Non-standardized preparation means results are not reproducible.

This is something to take to a clinician. The Atlas can tell you what is known about p-shot / prp & injectables in general. It cannot tell you what is happening in your body, and the difference matters most for exactly the symptoms that bring people to this page.

The Priapus Shot (P-Shot) is a trademarked protocol, registered by Dr. Charles Runels in 2010, that injects autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into the penis, marketed for erectile function, sensation, and 'enhancement.' The trademark protects the brand and the certification/training business, not any proven mechanism. Independent evidence is limited: one small randomized placebo-controlled trial (J Sex Med, 2021) reported some erectile improvement, but a JAMA analysis criticized direct-to-consumer PRP-for-ED marketing as outrunning the data. Related injectables include off-label glans Botox marketed for premature ejaculation/aesthetics, also without robust evidence.

A trademarked blood injection sold as regeneration, evidence thin, marketing loud.

What people take it for

These are the reasons people give for taking it. They are not effects it has been shown to have.

  • Marketed for erectile dysfunction
  • Marketed for sensation/enhancement
  • Marketed for Peyronie's
  • Glans Botox marketed off-label for PE

How it is supposed to work

PRP concentrates platelet-derived growth factors theorized to stimulate angiogenesis and tissue regeneration. The proposed mechanism is plausible in principle but unproven for durable erectile benefit; PRP preparations are non-standardized (platelet concentration varies widely between kits and operators), making 'PRP' a category, not a defined drug.

The trademark is the product

The 'P-Shot' is a marketing and licensing system: providers pay for certification and the right to use the trademarked name. That commercial structure incentivizes proliferation regardless of clinical proof. A registered trademark conveys zero efficacy information, it is intellectual property, not an FDA approval or an evidence grade.

Safety in detail

PRP/P-Shot is unproven for ED or enhancement and is sold cash-pay. It may delay evidence-based evaluation of erectile dysfunction. Off-label glans neurotoxin injection also lacks robust evidence.

What people get wrong

  • Often saidIt is trademarked so it is proven

    ActuallyA trademark is brand protection; it says nothing about whether the injection works.

  • Often saidPRP regenerates the penis

    ActuallyRegeneration is a hypothesis; durable functional benefit is not established by quality trials.

Who profits, and who pushes back

  • Sexual-medicine reviewers

    Pushes backAcademic urology

    PRP for ED remains experimental; marketing claims outpace the small, heterogeneous evidence and preparations are non-standardized.

What we do not know

  • Does standardized PRP show durable ED benefit in adequately powered RCTs?
  • Which, if any, PRP preparation parameters matter?

At a glance

Originator
Dr. Charles Runels (trademark 2010)
Material
Autologous platelet-rich plasma
FDA status
Unapproved for ED/enhancement
Trademark protects
The brand/training, not efficacy

What this entry does not yet cover

What follows is unfinished work on our side, not a finding about P-Shot / PRP & Injectables. A short entry is not a safe entry.

  • Timeline. We have not built the dated record of research and regulatory events.
  • Cost and market. We have not documented what it sells for or who sells it.
  • Supply chain. We have not mapped where it is made.
  • Who uses it. We have not documented the user groups.
  • What could change. No forward-looking summary yet.
  • How it compares. We have not set it against the alternatives.
  • Children and teenagers. We have not checked what is known about younger people.

Sources

The studies below are named and described, but not linked. You cannot open them from here and check our reading against them, which means this page is our summary of the literature rather than a document you can verify. Weigh it accordingly until the links exist.

The studies that matter

  • Poulios et al. randomized placebo-controlled PRP for ED, J Sex Med2021

    Small RCT (~60 men) reported some erectile-function improvement vs placebo; underpowered for durable conclusions

  • JAMA analysis of direct-to-consumer PRP marketing for ED2020s

    Found DTC marketing claims for PRP/ED exceed the supporting evidence base