Normal anatomic relationships in prepubescent female external genitalia

Chalmers, David J.; O’Donnell, Colin; Casperson, Kelly J.; Berngard, Samuel C.; Hou, Amy; Nuss, Geoffrey R.; Cost, Nicholas G.; Wilcox, Duncan T.

doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.04.011

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 The classification system of phys- in several age groups and generated regression models to show significant linear growth with age. 29 The findings of the papers in this review are striking and highlight the variety in normal vulval appearance. All studies found a wide disparity in labial length (range 5-100 mm) and labial width (range 1-60 mm).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…22 Three of the reviewed studies 20,23,24 consciously avoided racial and ethnic diversity to create a normative dataset specific to that cohort: 'we chose to include white women only, to create a homogeneous group of just one ethnicity'. 23 In the other five studies, 21,25,26,28,29 cohort composition was not recorded.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is significant variation in measurement technique between Lloyd et al and the subsequent studies. Four of the ten studies specified that no traction was applied when measuring the flexible tissue (labia folded to the side without stretching), 21,23,24,25 two studies specified minimal traction, 20,29 one study measured with and without stretching (on a pre-pubertal sample) 22 and three studies made no reference to applying traction. 19,26,28 It is reasonable to assume that traction was only applied under general anaesthetic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What is the anatomical basis of labiaplasty? A review of normative datasets for female genital anatomy

Hayes

Temple-Smith

2020

Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is the anatomical basis of labiaplasty? A review of normative datasets for female genital anatomy

Hayes

Temple-Smith

2020

Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The clitoral prepuce itself is not only contiguous with subcutaneous structures, but also more tightly bound to the underlying glans than is the penile prepuce. Finally, because of the small size and the dense adhesions of the premenarchal clitoris and prepuce (Sugar and Graham, 2006;Akbiyik and Kutlu, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2014), removal of the prepuce carries high risk of injury to the clitoral head, and possibly the clitoral shaft. 7 In contrast, male circumcision in infants has few complications (El Bcheraoui et al, 2014;Heras et al, 2018;Morris et al, 2019;.…”

Section: Male and Female Circumcisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Males and females have different anatomy: is this relevant to circumcision? A reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Jacobs

2022

Global Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procedural safety is one of the determinants of whether parents ought to be able to authorise ritual circumcision (foreskin removal) for their minor children. The penis and clitoris differ greatly in anatomy. Their homology is irrelevant to whether boys and girls should be treated differently regarding circumcision. The infantile male foreskin is easily separable from the penile head for safe removal. It is large enough that circumcision is technically easy but small enough not to be highly vascularised. In contrast, the prepubertal clitoris is tightly bound to the clitoral hood, and both are tightly bound to adjacent non-clitoral tissue. This, and the tiny size of the clitoris, make infantile circumcision dangerous. Circumcision increases in safety with age in girls, for whom the procedure is probably safest after sexual maturation. The opposite is true in boys. Circumcision is safest in infancy but becomes more dangerous as the penis enlarges and its blood supply increases. I argue that religion has sufficiently powerful positive effects within a society, and is sufficiently important to its adherents, as to warrant some deference by the state. In a liberal society, rituals should be prohibited only if likely to create serious physical and psychological harm. Male infant circumcision fails to meet this bar; however, it is uncertain whether this is the case for prepubertal female circumcision.

show abstract

Normal Female Prepuce

Fahmy

2020

Normal and Abnormal Prepuce

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal anatomic relationships in prepubescent female external genitalia

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

What is the anatomical basis of labiaplasty? A review of normative datasets for female genital anatomy

What is the anatomical basis of labiaplasty? A review of normative datasets for female genital anatomy

Males and females have different anatomy: is this relevant to circumcision? A reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Normal Female Prepuce

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About