Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2017; 39(08): 415-423
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603967
Original Article
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Survey on Aesthetic Vulvovaginal Procedures: What do Portuguese Doctors and Medical Students Think?

Inquérito sobre procedimentos estéticos vulvovaginais: qual a opinião dos médicos e estudantes de medicina portugueses?
Pedro Vieira-Baptista
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal
,
Joana Lima-Silva
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal
,
José Fonseca-Moutinho
2   Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
,
Virgínia Monteiro
3   Colposcopy and Laser Unit, Hospital da Luz, Lisboa, Portugal
,
Fernanda Águas
4   Department of Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

04 January 2017

17 April 2017

Publication Date:
23 June 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess the medical doctors and medical students' opinion regarding the evidence and ethical background of the performance of vulvovaginal aesthetic procedures (VVAPs).

Methods Cross-sectional online survey among 664 Portuguese medical doctors and students.

Results Most participants considered that there is never or there rarely is a medical reason to perform: vulvar whitening (85.9% [502/584]); hymenoplasty (72.0% [437/607]); mons pubis liposuction (71.6% [426/595]); “G-spot” augmentation (71.0% [409/576]); labia majora augmentation (66.3% [390/588]); labia minora augmentation (58.3% [326/559]); or laser vaginal tightening (52.3% [313/599]). Gynecologists and specialists were more likely to consider that there are no medical reasons to perform VVAPs; the opposite was true for plastic surgeons and students/residents.

Hymenoplasty raised ethical doubts in 51.1% (283/554) of the participants. Plastic surgeons and students/residents were less likely to raise ethical objections, while the opposite was true for gynecologists and specialists.

Most considered that VVAPs could contribute to an improvement in self-esteem (92.3% [613/664]); sexual function (78.5% [521/664]); vaginal atrophy (69.9% [464/664]); quality of life (66.3% [440/664]); and sexual pain (61.4% [408/664]).

Conclusions While medical doctors and students acknowledge the lack of evidence and scientific support for the performance of VVAPs, most do not raise ethical objections about them, especially if they are students or plastic surgeons, or if they have had or have considered having plastic surgery.

Resumo

Objetivos Avaliar a opinião de médicos e estudantes de medicina relativamente à evidência e contexto ético para a realização de procedimentos estéticos vulvovaginais (PEVVs).

Métodos Estudo transversal, consistindo de inquérito online a 664 médicos e estudantes de medicina portugueses.

Resultados A maioria dos participantes considerou que nunca ou raramente há uma razão médica para a realização de: branqueamento vulvar (85,9% [502/584]); himenoplastia (72,0% [437/607]); lipoaspiração do mons pubis (71,6% [426/595]); aumento do “ponto G” (71,0% [409/576]); aumento dos grandes lábios (66,3% [390/588]); aumento dos pequenos lábios (58,3% [326/559]) ou aperto vaginal com laser (52,3% [313/599]). Ser ginecologista e especialista associou-se a maior probabilidade de considerar não haver razões médicas para a realização de PEVV; o oposto foi verdade para os cirurgiões plásticos e estudantes/internos.

A himenoplastia levantou dúvidas em termos éticos em 51,1% (283/554) dos participantes. Cirurgiões plásticos e estudantes/internos relataram menos dúvidas em termos éticos; o oposto foi verdade para os ginecologistas ou especialistas.

A maioria considerou que os PEVVs podem contribuir para uma melhoria na autoestima (92,3% [613/664]); função sexual (78,5% [521/664]); atrofia vaginal (69,9% [464/664]); qualidade de vida (66,3% [440/664]); e dor sexual (61,4% [408/664]).

Conclusões Ainda que os médicos e estudantes de medicina reconheçam a falta de evidência e bases científicas para a realização de PEVVs, a maioria não levanta objecções em termos éticos, especialmente se forem estudantes, cirurgiões plásticos, ou se eles próprios tiverem sido submetidos a cirurgia plástica ou considerem vir a sê-lo.

Keywords

nymphoplasty - hymenoplasty - aesthetic surgery - ethics - vulvar surgery - laser

Palavras Chave

ninfoplastia - himenoplastia - cirurgia estética - ética - cirurgia vulvar - laser
 

  • References

  • 1 Vieira-Baptista P, Lima-Silva J, Beires J. “Intimate surgery”: what is done and under which scientif basis?. Acta Obstet Ginecol Port. 2015; 9 (05) 393-399
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Liao LM, Taghinejadi N, Creighton SM. An analysis of the content and clinical implications of online advertisements for female genital cosmetic surgery. BMJ Open 2012; 2 (06) e001908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vieira-Baptista P. “Cirurgia íntima” – tempo de impor limites. Acta Obstet Ginecol Port. 2014; 8 (03) 223-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sharp G, Tiggemann M, Mattiske J. Factors that influence the decision to undergo labiaplasty: media, relationships, and psychological well-being. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36 (04) 469-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Committee on Gynecologic Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 378: Vaginal “rejuvenation” and cosmetic vaginal procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110 (03) 737-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Female genital cosmetic surgery: a resource for general practitioners and other health professionals. Melbourne: The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 7 British Society for Paediatric & Adolescent Gynaecology [Internet]. Position Statement: labial reduction surgery (Labiaplasty) on adolescents. 2013 [cited 2016 Dec 10]. Available from: http://www.britspag.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Labiaplasty%20%20final%20Position%20Statement.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Female genital cosmetic surgery: SOGC Policy Statement, 300. J Obstet Gynaecol Can [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 Feb 12];35(12):e1-e5. Available from: https://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/December2013-CPG300-ENG-Online_final.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004; 6 (03) e34
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Cihantimur B, Herold C. Genital beautification: a concept that offers more than reduction of the labia minora. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (06) 1128-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Puppo V, Gruenwald I. Does the G-spot exist? A review of the current literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2012; 23 (12) 1665-1669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kilchevsky A, Vardi Y, Lowenstein L, Gruenwald I. Is the female G-spot truly a distinct anatomic entity?. J Sex Med 2012; 9 (03) 719-726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Reziciner S. [Prevention of recurrent post-coital cystitis using hymenoplasty]. Ann Urol (Paris) 1988; 22 (06) 446-451 French
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ahmadi A. Ethical issues in hymenoplasty: views from Tehran's physicians. J Med Ethics 2014; 40 (06) 429-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alter GJ. Management of the mons pubis and labia majora in the massive weight loss patient. Aesthet Surg J 2009; 29 (05) 432-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lapalorcia LM, Podda S, Campiglio G, Cordellini M. Labia majora labioplasty in HIV-related vaginal lipodystrophy: technique description and literature review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (04) 711-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sokol ER, Karram MM. An assessment of the safety and efficacy of a fractional CO2 laser system for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy. Menopause 2016; 23 (10) 1102-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Goodman MP. Female genital cosmetic and plastic surgery: a review. J Sex Med 2011; 8 (06) 1813-1825
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ostrzenski A. Selecting aesthetic gynecologic procedures for plastic surgeons: a review of target methodology. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37 (02) 256-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Radman HM. Hypertrophy of the labia minora. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 48 (1, Suppl) 78S-79S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ 1994; 309 (6948): 184-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goldstein AT, Jutrzonka SL. Ethical considerations of female genital plastic/cosmetic surgery. In: Goodman MP, editor. Female genital plastic and cosmetic surgery. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2016. . p. 39–44
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alter GJ. Aesthetic labia minora and clitoral hood reduction using extended central wedge resection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (06) 1780-1789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rouzier R, Louis-Sylvestre C, Paniel BJ, Haddad B. Hypertrophy of labia minora: experience with 163 reductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182 (1 Pt 1): 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Goodman MP, Placik OJ, Benson III RH. , et al. A large multicenter outcome study of female genital plastic surgery. J Sex Med 2010; 7 (4 Pt 1): 1565-1577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lloyd J, Crouch NS, Minto CL, Liao LM, Creighton SM. Female genital appearance: “normality” unfolds. BJOG 2005; 112 (05) 643-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McDougall LJ. Towards a clean slit: how medicine and notions of normality are shaping female genital aesthetics. Cult Health Sex 2013; 15 (07) 774-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tadisina KK, Chopra K, Singh DP. Body dysmorphic disorder in plastic surgery. Eplasty 2013; 13: ic48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Likes WM, Sideri M, Haefner H, Cunningham P, Albani F. Aesthetic practice of labial reduction. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008; 12 (03) 210-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 World Health Organization [Internet]. Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement: UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCHR, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. Geneva: WHO; 2008 [cited 2014 Aug 29]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43839/1/9789241596442_eng.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Conroy RM. Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?. BMJ 2006; 333 (7559): 106-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar