ArticleAesthetic surgery journal2024
Did She or Didn't She? Perceptions of Operative Status of Female Genitalia.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Management of Unilateral Labia Minora Hypertrophy: A Retrospective Clinical Study of Individualized Reduction Techniques.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Aesthetic Genital Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Surgery Journal: 30 Years of Evolution and Refinement.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Motivational Factors for Labiaplasty: A Systematic Review of Medical Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Right Analysis for the Right Data in Aesthetic Surgery Research.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2024Article
- A Preliminary Qualitative Analysis of women's Experiences With Vaginal Fractional COAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough extensive research has explored why women undergo labiaplasty, little attention has been paid to societal and professional abilities to distinguish between altered and unaltered labia, impacting both patient concerns and broader societal perceptions.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the general public and healthcare professionals in identifying labiaplasty and to pinpoint the misconceptions driving their perceptions. The goal was to inform more effective patient counseling strategies and challenge existing stigmas around cosmetic genital surgery.
methodsThe authors conducted an online survey of 511 lay adults and a group of 21 gynecologists and aesthetic vulvar surgeons. The survey assessed the participants' ability to detect labiaplasty from images, focusing on aesthetic appearance, hair patterns, and size. The analysis involved Pearson correlation and Z-tests to compare perceptions against actual operative status.
resultsAnalysis of the survey findings revealed a pronounced difficulty among participants in accurately discerning labiaplasty, with neither group showing a significant ability to identify surgical alterations. Misinterpretations were notably influenced by expectations of aesthetic appearance, with 49% associating an "odd" or "fake" look with surgery, and hair and size misconceptions also misleading respondents. Additionally, 20% of participants mistakenly related surgical changes to gender-affirming surgery or female genital mutilation.
conclusionsThe study highlights a gap in the ability of both the general public and medical professionals to accurately identify labiaplasty, pointing to a broad misunderstanding of cosmetic genital surgery's visual outcomes. Addressing these misconceptions through targeted education could substantially improve patient counseling and help dismantle the stigmas associated with labiaplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.