Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of 19 Patients Undergoing Clitoral and Labial Reconstruction After Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting.

BACKGROUND

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is the intentional alteration, removal, or injury of female genitalia for non-medical reasons. Approximately 200 million females have been victims of FGM/C, and genital reconstructive procedures are increasing in demand.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes after FGM/C reconstruction to help guide treatment practices.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing anatomic reconstruction after FGM/C were retrospectively identified. Outcomes included clitoral, labial, and donor site surgical site occurrences (SSO) and the need for revision operations. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using an adapted version of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), a validated outcomes instrument that assesses sexual function through 6 domains, with each domain having a maximum score of 6.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were identified in our review. Patients presented for reconstruction due to dyspareunia, inability to orgasm, chronic infections, to normalize appearance, and/or to "feel normal." There were no SSOs and two revision operations for adhesions. 74% of patients completed the FSFI postoperatively. Despite most patients seeking repair for inability to orgasm and/or dyspareunia, the median scores for these domains were 4.6 and 5.2. Patients' desire to engage in sexual activity scored lowest (3.9), and patients reported concerns over the appearance of their genitalia (50%) that affected self-confidence (85.7%).

CONCLUSION

FGM/C reconstruction is safe and contributes to improvements in physical sexual health. Psychological trauma may contribute to lessened sexual desire and self-confidence even after reconstruction. Multidisciplinary treatment is important to address the long-term psychological effects of this practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .