Long-term Functional and Aesthetic Outcomes of Labiaplasty: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS), and specifically labiaplasty, is on the rise. Common motivators for labiaplasty include hygiene concerns, functional impairment, difficulties with physical or sexual activity, and dissatisfaction with genital appearance, among others. However, there have been few reports on long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes and complications of labiaplasty. The aim of this literature review was to report on long-term outcomes of labiaplasty, defined as ≥1 year postoperatively, to inform safety and efficacy recommendations for the procedure. A comprehensive literature review was conducted on PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) from inception to December 1, 2023, following PRISMA guidelines. Articles were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria. A manual search was performed to identify additional relevant studies. Nine studies reported on the long-term postoperative complications associated with labiaplasty, with a cumulative total of 748 patients. The most commonly reported complications included postoperative asymmetry (n = 45, 6.02%), scarring (n = 14, 1.87%), and the need for revisional surgery (n = 42, 5.61%). Of note, the majority of patients (n = 621 of 748) were reported to not have any postoperative complications. In the 7 studies that reported on psychological outcomes associated with labiaplasty, all reported sustained improvement in genital appearance scores as well as aesthetic and sexual satisfaction over the long term.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".