Satisfaction Survey of Women After Cosmetic Genital Procedures: A Cross-Sectional Study From Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Background Female cosmetic genital surgery (FCGS) aims for better aesthetic genital appearance and improved functional aspects, to enhance women’s self-esteem and satisfaction. Objectives This study aims to assess the satisfaction of women who have undergone FCGS, and its impact on their sexual, psychological, and aesthetic aspects. Methods An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in private clinics in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, between March and June of 2019, in women who underwent FCGS. Phone interviews were conducted in the Arabic language. The survey comprised four sections: demographics, motives for FCGS, quality of life (QoL) questionnaires about genital appearance satisfaction, and sexual function. Results Out of the 196 women undergoing FCGS during the study period, 11.7% refused to participate, and 37.2% did not answer phone calls; 51% of the women participated in the study. The women's age ranged between 23 and 55 years; 64% underwent vaginoplasty, and 73% underwent other cosmetic procedures. Ninety-two percent of the women did not have any complications after these procedures. Conclusions In this group of women, FCGS was safe and effective, and the majority of participants reported overall satisfaction and improvement of sexual function, genital appearance, and self-esteem.

Women's Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice About Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study in Saudi Arabia

“…Social media certainly contributed the most to this rise in awareness; Crockett et al conducted a study on the influence of plastic surgery, and they discovered that television shows influenced four out of five patients to seek cosmetic surgery [6]. All the studies that were conducted in Saudi Arabia targeted the patients' satisfaction, the perspective of their experience after the operation, and their motives [7]. However, several studies evaluated physicians' knowledge from different subspecialties, and the reported knowledge level was suboptimal, but their attitudes improved [8,9].…”