The Safety of Aesthetic Labiaplasty: A Plastic Surgery Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The demand for female aesthetic labiaplasty surgery continues to rapidly increase. Several questions have been raised regarding the safety and effectiveness of female aesthetic genital surgery. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to review our experience with aesthetic labiaplasty and describe the type and frequency of complications that have been experienced. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who had primary aesthetic labia minora reduction surgery from August 2007 to April 2014. A chart review of the electronic medical record was performed to examine demographic, procedural, and outcome data. RESULTS: In the study period, 113 patients underwent aesthetic labiaplasty. Of these, 29 patients (25.6%) had labiaplasty performed in combination with another procedure. A total of 15 patients (13.3%) reported transient symptoms, including swelling, bruising, and pain. There was one patient (0.8%) that experienced bleeding. Four patients (3.5%) required revision surgery. All revisions were performed to excise further tissue to address persistent redundancy or asymmetry. No major complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, aesthetic surgery of the labia minora using an edge excision technique has a very low complication rate and provides satisfactory aesthetic outcomes for our patients. More studies examining the impact of labiaplasty on a woman's self-image and quality of life would add to our understanding of the motivations and expectations of women undergoing this aesthetic surgery. This information will allow us to help our patients make well-informed decisions when considering this aesthetic genital surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".