ArticleCureus2024
Cosmetic Gynecology: Is There Enough Exposure in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency?
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction While cosmetic gynecology has gained popularity, the training experience for obstetrics and gynecology residents in this area is limited and not standardized. The primary objective was to investigate the exposure of obstetrics and gynecology residents to cosmetic gynecologic procedures including hymenoplasty, labia majora reduction, vaginoplasty, G-spot amplification, labiaplasty, clitoral hood reduction, and vaginal laser therapy. The secondary objective was to assess their comfort in performing the procedures after graduation. Methods This is a non-validated cross-sectional survey of obstetrics and gynecology residents and their exposure to cosmetic gynecology procedures. Using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs in the United States were identified, and the residency program coordinators were asked to distribute the survey. Data regarding demographics, program-specific characteristics, and exposure to certain cosmetic gynecology procedures were obtained and reviewed. Participants' reported comfort with the independent practice of certain cosmetic gynecology procedures after graduation was also obtained. Descriptive statistics were completed. Results A total of 96 responses were received. Approximately 50% of participants were exposed to cosmetic gynecology during training. Moreover, 70.9% of residents disagreed that they would feel confident in defining the included procedures. Furthermore, 87.5% disagreed that they would feel comfortable performing the procedures independently. A minority of participants were also unsure of the indication for cosmetic gynecology procedures, with 15.4%, 7.1%, 5.7%, and 4% unaware of the surgical indication for hymenoplasty, vaginoplasty, labiaplasty, and labia majora reduction, respectively. No participant knew the indication of surgery for vaginal laser therapy or clitoral hood reduction. Conclusions In the setting of current cosmetic gynecology training, nearly 90% of residents were not comfortable with these surgeries after graduation. Exposure to cosmetic gynecology for obstetrics and gynecology residents was limited. Without adequate exposure, residents may face difficulty performing procedures and managing complications after graduation. Therefore, standardizing resident training for cosmetic gynecology should be considered.
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.