The Sexual, Psychological, and Body Image Health of Women Undergoing Elective Vulvovaginal Plastic/Cosmetic Procedures: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulvovaginal aesthetic (VVA) surgery has become increasingly popular, and there is anecdotal support for its enhancing effects on sexual functioning and self-concept. We conducted a prospective pilot study to evaluate the impact of VVA surgery on sexual response. A prospective cohort of women electing VVA cosmetic surgery completed questionnaires before VVA surgery (n = 33), after VVA surgery (n = 18), and again 6 to 9 months later (n = 12) using the Female Sexual Function Index, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale for Body Dysmorphic Disorder. No significant effect of VVA surgery was noted on Desire, Lubrication, Orgasm, Pain, or Total Score at either time point, but scores on Arousal and Satisfaction increased immediately after surgery, then fell back to baseline levels at follow-up. No significant effect of VVA surgery was seen on psychological functioning at either time point. According to established cut-off scores for body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), 61.1% of participants met criteria for BDD at baseline; this proportion significantly dropped to 11.1% after surgery, and to 8.3% at follow-up. Contrary to anecdotal claims, women in the present sample did not have symptoms of sexual dysfunction that may have motivated them to seek VVA surgery, nor was there any significant effect of surgery on sexual response. It is important to note that a high proportion of women seeking VVA met criteria for BDD; this has implications for surgeons and consenting patients for these cosmetic genital procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".