The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2020
What is the anatomical basis of labiaplasty? A review of normative datasets for female genital anatomy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hayes Jennifer A, Temple-Smith Meredith J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing numbers of labiaplasties being performed, there is little quantitative information on normal labial diversity to guide medical education, patient education and surgical treatment.
AIM: This scoping review will determine what is known in the published literature about the anatomical basis of normal for labia and female genital cosmetic surgery (FCGS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The scoping review identified ten population-based studies that recorded labial dimensions by searching three electronic databases utilising a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search strategy. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and then reference lists were scrutinised until no further articles that met the criteria were located.
RESULTS: These studies showed significant variation in labial length (range 5-100 mm) and width (range 1-60 mm). Labia minora were wider in pre-menopausal women than in post-menopausal women, protruding labia minora were more common than not, and asymmetry between right and left labia was common. Variation in recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and measurement did not allow for summation of the data sets.
CONCLUSION: This information could usefully be added to medical textbooks and teaching to ensure that medical graduates are sufficiently informed about normal variation in female genital anatomy to assess and advise women seeking FGCS.
AIM: This scoping review will determine what is known in the published literature about the anatomical basis of normal for labia and female genital cosmetic surgery (FCGS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The scoping review identified ten population-based studies that recorded labial dimensions by searching three electronic databases utilising a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search strategy. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and then reference lists were scrutinised until no further articles that met the criteria were located.
RESULTS: These studies showed significant variation in labial length (range 5-100 mm) and width (range 1-60 mm). Labia minora were wider in pre-menopausal women than in post-menopausal women, protruding labia minora were more common than not, and asymmetry between right and left labia was common. Variation in recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and measurement did not allow for summation of the data sets.
CONCLUSION: This information could usefully be added to medical textbooks and teaching to ensure that medical graduates are sufficiently informed about normal variation in female genital anatomy to assess and advise women seeking FGCS.