| Title |
Female genital cosmetic surgery: a review of techniques and outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-013-2117-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheryl B. Iglesia, Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan, Red Alinsod |
| Abstract |
The aesthetic and functional procedures that comprise female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) include traditional vaginal prolapse procedures as well as cosmetic vulvar and labial procedures. The line between cosmetic and medically indicated surgical procedures is blurred, and today many operations are performed for both purposes. The contributions of gynecologists and reconstructive pelvic surgeons are crucial in this debate. Aesthetic vaginal surgeons may unintentionally blur legitimate female pelvic floor disorders with other aesthetic conditions. In the absence of quality outcome data, the value of FGCS in improving sexual function remains uncertain. Women seeking FGCS need to be educated about the range and variation of labia widths and genital appearance, and should be evaluated for true pelvic support disorders such as pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Women seeking FGCS should also be screened for psychological conditions and should act autonomously without coercion from partners or surgeons with proprietary conflicts of interest. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 79 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 47% |
| Psychology | 7 | 9% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2019.
All research outputs
#938,054
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#51
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,193
of 208,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 208,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.