Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026
Application of the Double Wedge Resection Technique in the Correction of Labia Minora Hypertrophy Combined with Redundant Clitoral Hood.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Dan, Liu Xinhao, Yang E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Approximately 30% of individuals with labia minora hypertrophy seeking plastic surgery consultation present concomitant redundant clitoral hood. This condition may lead to restricted local hygiene, recurrent frictional irritation, and diminished clitoral sensitivity. It is therefore necessary to explore a simplified surgical approach that can simultaneously address these multiple concerns.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 127 surgical patients clinically diagnosed with labia minora hypertrophy combined with redundant clitoral hood between January 2021 and January 2025. Based on their surgical technique, the patients were divided into a traditional wedge resection group and a double wedge resection group. Parameters compared between the two groups included operative time, blood loss, amount of local anesthetic used, female genital self-image scale (FGSIS) scores, degree of clitoral glans redundancy, as well as the incidence of complications.
RESULTS: The double wedge technique required longer operative time, more local anesthetic, and greater blood loss than the traditional wedge resection, with no significant difference in hospital stay. Both groups showed improved FGSIS scores postoperatively. Scores for all questionnaire items (except item 3) were higher in the double wedge group. The improvement in clitoral glans redundancy was significantly greater in the double wedge group (1.45 ± 0.34 vs 0.65 ± 0.45; T = 11.72, p < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSION: The double wedge resection technique is a straightforward procedure that improves both function and aesthetics of the labia minora and clitoral hood. With low complication rates and high patient satisfaction, it represents a safe and effective surgical option.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 127 surgical patients clinically diagnosed with labia minora hypertrophy combined with redundant clitoral hood between January 2021 and January 2025. Based on their surgical technique, the patients were divided into a traditional wedge resection group and a double wedge resection group. Parameters compared between the two groups included operative time, blood loss, amount of local anesthetic used, female genital self-image scale (FGSIS) scores, degree of clitoral glans redundancy, as well as the incidence of complications.
RESULTS: The double wedge technique required longer operative time, more local anesthetic, and greater blood loss than the traditional wedge resection, with no significant difference in hospital stay. Both groups showed improved FGSIS scores postoperatively. Scores for all questionnaire items (except item 3) were higher in the double wedge group. The improvement in clitoral glans redundancy was significantly greater in the double wedge group (1.45 ± 0.34 vs 0.65 ± 0.45; T = 11.72, p < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups.
CONCLUSION: The double wedge resection technique is a straightforward procedure that improves both function and aesthetics of the labia minora and clitoral hood. With low complication rates and high patient satisfaction, it represents a safe and effective surgical option.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .