FEATURE Female Cosmetic Genital : lifestyle or science?

BY ILIAS GIARENIS AND LINDA CARDOZO

he demand for female cosmetic vaginal rejuvenation®’ or ‘G shot®’, functional reasons, it might be justifiable genital surgery (FCGS) has makes the scientific assessment of these to attract public funding. A clear and increased over the last decade [1]. operations very difficult. The terminology strict selection process of appropriate TThis rise is difficult to quantify, needs to be standardised in an effort to candidates for FCGS is required to allow as the majority of these procedures are avoid ambiguity and inconsistency [7]. allocation of government funding. performed in the private sector. However, Additionally, conflicts of interest prevent this trend is also obvious within national studying trademarked or proprietary Normal anatomy and patient health systems (NHS, UK), where the treatments [8]. There is a well-recognised perception number of operations coded as ‘excision lack of robust evidence on the safety A robust selection process would be of excess labial tissue’ increased from and benefits of these procedures [9]. In impossible without understanding of the 568 in 2002 to 1,064 in 2008 [2]. view of this, colleges and associations of normal anatomy of the female genitalia. A number of reasons could explain obstetrics and have issued A small cross-sectional study reporting the increasing demand for FCGS. warnings about the performance of such on the normal dimensions and exact Younger women favour less pubic hair, operations [10]. positioning of the , urethra, clitoris which results in easier visualisation and labia, showed a wide natural variation of the external genitalia [3]. Increased Ethical issues of these features [15]. The mean labia access to female body images on the The rising number of these operations minora width was 21.8 mm, but with a Internet, TV and in magazines has raised has also highlighted the controversy broad range of 7-50mm, and their length awareness of genital appearance and about the relationship between FCGS and was 60.6 mm with a range between skewed the perception of normality female genital mutilation (FGM). FGM 20 and 100mm. These results have towards adolescent features, with flat comprises all procedures that involve challenged a previous definition of labia without protrusion behind the “partial or total removal of the external minora hypertrophy, which used a width labia majora [4]. TV shows and articles female genitalia, or other injury to the of 40mm as cut-off [16]. Surprisingly, in lifestyle magazines on FCGS might female genital organs for non-medical labial measurements of a cohort of 33 also influence the desire for a ‘face lift of reasons” [11] and is a criminal offence in women requesting labial reduction the and vagina’, together with the most of the western world countries. In surgery were all within the published rising number of cosmetic procedures in the UK, the Female Genital Mutilation normal range [17]. A comparison of labial general. Advertisement and aggressive Act 2003 excludes surgical operations measurements between women seeking marketing of FCGS could also inflate the which are necessary for woman’s physical in an NHS gynaecology clinic demand for surgery. A recent Google or mental health [12]. However, as there and those in a private cosmetic clinic has search for ‘cosmetic genital surgery’ is limited evidence regarding the benefit shown that NHS patients appeared to highlighted more than 2,000,000 items, of FCGS for physical and mental health, have significantly greater labia minora whereas a Pubmed search found only 234 some campaigners suggest that medical width than the private patients (mean items, demonstrating the huge increase practitioners performing such procedures 40.27 vs. 28.09 mm, p<0.001) [18]. in interest regarding this type of surgery should be prosecuted [13]. Increased access to genital pictures may by the general public with the medical Another controversial issue is the narrow the social definition of normal and profession being far less well informed. funding of these procedures. The majority increase the desire to emulate what is The quality and quantity of clinical of the operations performed for purely perceived as being attractive. Considering information on FCGS provider sites aesthetic reasons are carried out in the the enormous natural variation of the is poor, with erroneous information private sector and are self-funded. But topographical features of the female in some instances [5]. This field has a share of the demand for FCGS is being genitalia and the overlap between women been described “like the old Wild, Wild absorbed by publicly funded health seeking FCGS or not, it is difficult to use West: wide open and unregulated” care services [14]. Health care providers anatomic measurements as objective [6]. The majority of FCGS procedures should discourage the use of public criteria for surgery. are poorly defined and there is no funds for the performance of purely standardised terminology. The use of cosmetic procedures. Nevertheless, if Types of FCGS non-medical terms, such as ‘designer FCGS procedures have physical or mental There are a number of procedures vagina’, ‘vaginal rejuvenation’, ‘laser health benefits or are being performed for included under the umbrella term FCGS

pmfa news | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 | VOL 1 NO 3 | www.pmfanews.com FEATURE

(Table 1). It is of paramount importance measures. Every study shows a success to use descriptive and standardised / satisfaction rate of more than 80% Table 1 terms such as those employed in [23]. In a large multicentre study, 97% the field of urogynaecology / female of patients undergoing labiaplasty and FGCS procedures urology, rather than trademarked or 83% of patients undergoing commercial names. The procedures / perineoplasty felt that they achieved 1. Labiaplasty could be further subdivided based on their goals postoperatively. Improvement the operating instruments such as laser, of their sexual function was reported by I. Labia minora reduction radiofrequency, electrocautery or ‘cold 64% and 86% of women respectively [21]. a) Linear resection knife’. For laser-assisted procedures, The incidence of reported b) Wedge resection different types of laser (CO2, Er:YAG, complications varies in the literature (V-wedge, Z-plasty) Nd:YAG) have been used for excision or (3.8%-23.8%). A wide range of c) De-epithelised reduction ablation [19]. For bulking procedures, postoperative complications have been II. Labia majora augmentation the most commonly used materials are reported such as infection, haematoma, hyaluronic acid and autologous fat. dyspareunia, localised pain, altered III. Labia majora reduction sensation, poor wound healing, scarring, Indications wound separation and even bowel and 2. Vaginoplasty Women seek FCGS for aesthetic, bladder injury with fistula formation. I. Anterior colporraphy functional, sexual and cultural reasons. The majority of these complications are II. Posterior colporraphy A number of physical complaints are considered as minor by the authors of the (with or without levator described by these women, such as pain, relevant papers, which do not apparently ani plication) discomfort or irritation associated with interfere with overall satisfaction [23]. III. Lateral colporraphy clothing, exercise, , as IV. Vaginal bulking procedures well as sensation of vaginal relaxation and Preoperative considerations lack of coital friction. In a retrospective Women should be adequately counselled 3. Perineoplasty study of 131 patients undergoing and provide informed consent about FCGS labiaplasty, 32% were seeking surgery procedures. They should be educated about I. Perineorrhaphy strictly for functional impairment, 37% the wide variety of normal female genital II. Fenton’s procedure for cosmetic reasons only and 31% for appearance and be reassured about their both functional and cosmetic reasons genital anatomy. Special attention should 4. [20]. In a different multicentre cohort be paid to younger girls, as the development of 258 women undergoing FCGS, 64% of external genitalia continues throughout 5. Hymenoplasty reported discomfort preoperatively, adolescence. Ideally, any surgical (hymenorrhaphy) 48% cosmetic reasons, 33% wanted intervention should be delayed until surgery for self-esteem and 30% for development is fully complete. Women 6. G-spot bulking sexual enhancement [21]. In the same seeking FCGS should be made aware of (amplification) study, the majority of women undergoing the lack of robust scientific evidence about vaginoplasty and / or perineoplasty the safety and efficacy of these operations. expected increase in their (58%) or their Preoperative counselling regarding partner’s (54%) sexual pleasure. Women functional, sexual and cosmetic benefits routine use of the Genital Appearance referred to an NHS gynaecology clinic by should be balanced against potential Satisfaction (GAS) scale, an 11-item tool and their general practitioner are more likely risks to help patients develop realistic the Cosmetic Procedure Screening Scale to report functional reasons, compared to expectations. Physicians should declare any modified for labia (COPS-L), a nine-item self-referred women to a private cosmetic conflicts of interest for treatments, where instrument, which are both validated in clinic [18]. commercial rights are involved. women seeking labiaplasty [25]. The request for hymenoplasty is rather The relevance of psychological issues in Another challenging group are patients different and raises further ethical issues. cosmetic surgery has been well established with sexual dysfunction. Although the It is usually made by a different group of in the literature and the increased majority of women undergoing FCGS, patients. They often come from specific prevalence of underlying psychopathology mainly vaginoplasty and perineoplasty, ethnic / religious groups, especially in patients requesting surgery has been expect improvement of their sexual African and Middle Eastern countries, recognised [24]. Women seeking labiaplasty function, caution in the preoperative where bleeding during post-nuptial do not differ from controls on measures counselling is required. There is a lack intercourse and vaginal tightness are of depression or anxiety, but they have a of good-quality data regarding sexual considered proofs of [22]. worse body image quality of life (p=0.041) outcome after FCGS and therefore patients and they are more likely to suffer from should be aware that functional and Outcomes body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) (18% cosmetic benefits are the basic indications Despite the increasing interest in FCGS, vs. 0%, p<0.001)[18]. Consequently, for these operations. Validated instruments only limited outcome data have been screening for psychopathology during the of sexual function / dysfunction such as published in the literature. The majority preoperative interview is essential. Based the Golombock-Rust Inventory of Sexual of the studies are retrospective, single- on this, the surgeon could refer patients to Satisfaction (GRISS) [26] or structured centre case series with short-term follow- a psychologist or psychiatrist and withhold screening questions should be used up (Level of evidence III – IV), which FCGS from women with significant preoperatively. Women with significant report subjective, non-validated outcome mental impairment. We recommend the sexual dysfunction should be referred to a

pmfa news | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 | VOL 1 NO 3 | www.pmfanews.com FEATURE

qualified psychosexual therapist before any ‘laser vaginal rejuvenation®’ or ‘G shot®’ 19. Iglesia CB, Yurteri-Kaplan L, Alinsod R. Female genital cosmetic surgery: a review of techniques and planned surgical intervention. should be abandoned in an effort to outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 2013 May. [Epub ahead of avoid confusion and develop realistic print] patient expectations. Well-designed 20. Milkos JR, Moore RD. Labiaplasty of the labia minora: Service provision patients’ indications for pursuing surgery. J Sex Med In the current unregulated environment of prospective randomised controlled trials 2008;5:1492-5. FCGS, gynaecologists, urogynaecologists, or comparative studies with long-term 21. Goodman MP, Placik OJ, Benson RH, et al. A large plastic surgeons and urologists perform follow-up, which use validated tools and multicentre outcome study of female genital plastic surgery. J Sex Med 2010;7:1565-77. these operations. Despite the absence patient reported outcomes, are needed. 22. Van Moorst BR, van Lunsen RH, van Dijken DK, of structured training programmes, Patients should be carefully counselled Salvatore CM. Backgrounds of women applying for the majority of the plastic surgeons in and selected preoperatively ideally by a reconstruction, the effects of counselling on myths and misunderstandings about virginity, and the USA (51%) offer FCGS with a mean multidisciplinary team. Clinical governance the results of hymen reconstruction. Eur J Contracept workload of 3.68 procedures per year arrangements should be made to allow Reprod Health Care 2012;17:93-105. continuous monitoring of FCGS provision 23. Goodman MP. Female genital cosmetic and plastic [27]. These procedures are not considered surgery: a review. J Sex Med 2011;8:1813-25. gynaecologic or urologic and generally and to facilitate auditing of the service. The 24. Hasan JS. Psychological issues in cosmetic surgery: a are not taught during residencies, as there request for FCGS may be reasonable and functional overview. Ann Plast Surg 2000;44:89-96. are no training guidelines. In view of the whilst we all respect the right to choose, 25. Veale D, Eshkevari E, Ellison N, et al. Validation of genital appearance satisfaction scale and the cosmetic increasing demand of these operations there needs to be increased regulation in procedure screening scale for women seeking the relevant surgical professional bodies this controversial area of medicine. labiaplasty. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2013;34:46- 52. should provide some guidance on training 26. Rust J, Golombok S. The Golombock-Rust Inventory of and practice requirements. As with other Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS). Br J Clin Psychol 1985;24:63- References 4. surgical procedures, service accreditation 1. Liao LM, Creighton SM. Requests for cosmetic 27. Mirzabeigi MN, Moore JH Jr, Mericli AF, et al. Current : how should healthcare providers should be based on education, training, trends in vaginal labioplasty: a survey of plastic respond? BMJ 2007;334:1090-2. experience and demonstrated competence. surgeons. Ann Plast Surg 2012;68:125-34. 2. Hospital Episode Statistics – Health and Social Care 28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) FCGS should ideally be provided by a Information Centre: www.hscic.gov.uk. Accessed Clinical guideline 171. Urinary incontinence in women. September 2013. multidisciplinary team (MDT) of health Sept 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/ care professionals, similar to the model 3. Yurteri-kaplan LA, Antosh DD, Sokol AI, Park AJ, et al. live/14271/65144/65144.pdf. Accessed 30 October Interest in cosmetic vulvar surgery and perceptions of 2013. recommended by the National Institute vulvar appearance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:428. for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for e1-7. the management of urinary incontinence 4. Braun V. In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital cosmetic surgery. Sexualities 2005;8:407-24. in women [28]. The MDT should include 5. Liao LM, Taghinejadi N, Creighton SM. An analysis at least two operating surgeons, a of the content and clinical implications of online psychologist / psychiatrist, a psychosexual advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery. BMJ Open 2012;2(6). doi:pii: e001908. 10.1136/ therapist and a physiotherapist. Having bmjopen-2012-001908 representation from professionals with 6. Goodman MP. Female cosmetic genital surgery. Obstet different experience would allow a wider Gynecol 2009;113:154-9. 7. Mirzabeigi MN, Jandali S, Mettel R, Alter G. The choice for patients and better patient nomenclature of “vaginal rejuvenation” and elective selection. An MDT review before all surgical vulvovaginal plastic surgery. Aesthetic Surg J procedures could save future problems 2011;31:723-4. 8. Cain JM, Iglesia CB, Dickens B, Montgomery O. Body arising from poor decision-making and enhancement through female genital cosmetic Ilias Giarenis, potentially increase patient satisfaction. surgery creates ethical and rights dilemmas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;122:169-72. MRCOG, Furthermore, the MDT would also be 9. Liao LM, Michala L, Creighton SM. Labial surgery Subspecialty Trainee, able to make special clinical governance for well women: a review of the literature. BJOG Department of arrangements, audit interventions 2010;117:20-5. Urogynaecology, King’s College Hospital and continuously monitor and review 10. Committee on Gynecologic Practice., American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG NHS Foundation Trust, outcomes. A national or international Committee opinion No 378. Vaginal “rejuvenation” Denmark Hill, and cosmetic vaginal procedures. Obstet Gynecol registry for FCGS procedures or an online Declaration of London, SE5 9RS, UK. 2007;110:737-8. database tool, similar to the one offered by competing Tel: +44 (0)20 3299 3568 11. World Health Organisation. Female Genital Mutilation. interests: E: [email protected] the British Society of Urogynaecology for Fact sheet No 241. Updated February 2013. None declared. prolapse and urinary incontinence surgery, 12. Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. www.legislation. could create a regulatory mechanism in gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/pdfs/ukpga_20030031_en.pdf Linda Cardozo, 13. Berer M. It’s female genital mutilation and should be the field. prosecuted. BMJ 2007;334:1335. MD, FRCOG, Professor of 14. Liao LM, Creighton SM. Requests for cosmetic Urogynaecology and genitoplasty: how should healthcare providers Conclusions respond? BMJ 2007;334:1090-2. Consultant Gynaecologist, Department of Urogynae- FCGS is a rapidly expanding and poorly 15. Lloyd J, Crouch NS, Minto CL, et al. Female genital regulated field of cosmetic surgery. Despite appearance: “normality” unfolds. BJOG 2005;112: cology, King’s College Hospital the controversies, the relevant surgical 643-6. 16. Rouzier R, Louis-Sylvestre C, Paniel BJ, Haddad B. Declaration of NHS Foundation Trust, professional bodies should attempt Hypertrophy of the labia minora; experience of 163 competing London, UK; to regulate training and performance reductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:35-40. interests: Co-Chairman, None declared. of these procedures. The terminology 17. Crouch NS, Deans R, Michala L, et al. Clinical World Health Organisation characteristics of well women seeking labial reduction International Consultation should be standardised and descriptive surgery: a prospective study. BJOG 2011;118:1507-10. on Incontinence; in order to improve consistency and 18. Veale D, Eshkevari E, Ellison N, et al. Psychological President, European characteristics and motivation of women seeking allow systematic review of the literature. Urogynaecology Association. labiaplasty. Psychol Med 2013:1-12. [Epub ahead of Emotive terms such as ‘designer vagina’, print]

pmfa news | FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 | VOL 1 NO 3 | www.pmfanews.com