Genital injuries and allegation of digital vaginal penetration - A retrospective examination of forensic case notes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of genital injuries following alleged sexual assault by digital penetration of the vagina in the absence of penile penetration of the vagina or anus in women age 16 and over; and to compare with the prevalence of genital injuries following alleged sexual assault by penile vaginal penetration in the absence of penile penetration of the anus or digital penetration of the vagina and/or anus.

POPULATION

1428 adults and children attending a forensic medical examination between September 2017 and January 2020 at the Haven sexual assault referral center situated in Paddington, London, UK.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of forensic notes.

METHODS

Eligible cases were identified through the standardized forensic notes and relevant data was extracted.

RESULTS

109 cases of women 16 years and over alleging digital penetration only and 110 cases of women 16 years and over alleging penile vaginal penetration only were included. The 110 cases of penile vaginal penetration only were randomly selected for comparison purposes. 7.6% of Haven attenders fulfilled the digital penetration only category. In this category, the patients mean age was 27.2 years. Thirteen patients (11.9%) sustained genital injuries; of those with genital injuries, eleven (84.6%) sustained one or more abrasions. The most common site of injury was the labia minora (46.2%). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups (digital penetration only and penile vaginal penetration only) in terms of number of patients with genital injuries, type or location of injury. There were differences regarding the relationship between patient and assailant: more stranger assaults in the digital penetration group 27/109 (29%) vs 13/110 (12%) in the penile penetration group. There was one assault by multiple assailants in the digital penetration group and 8 (7.3%) in the penile penetration group. In the digital penetration group there was more alcohol use [71/109 (65.1%) vs 62/110 (56.4%)] but less drug use [21/109 (19.3%) vs 30/110 (27.3%)] than in the penile vaginal penetration group.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients examined following an allegation of digital vaginal penetration without penile penetration sustained no injuries. Of those who did, abrasions were the most common type of injury, with the inner labia minora being the most common location for injury. There were no significant differences with the injuries seen in the penile vaginal penetration group in terms of number of patients with genital injuries, type or location of injury.