I am honored to have Dr. Sisti, a surgeon who is well acquainted with labiaplasty and coauthor of a comprehensive review,1 comment on our investigation.2 He discusses two studies of male preferences regarding female genital appearance. These findings confirm the results of an earlier article we have published regarding cultural expectations for the female pudenda as reflected in the media and specifically in the archetypal men’s magazine, Playboy.3
Dr. Sisti similarly echoes the observations of others who also stress the aesthetic goals of labiaplasty as being the preeminent motivating factor for women seeking labiaplasty.4 It is clear that the popularity of the procedure is not limited to the United States; reports from experienced surgeons such as Triana and Robledo,5 Mayer,6 Gress,7 Oranges et al.,1 Veale et al.,8 Giraldo et al.,9 Felicia Yde,10 Choi and Kim,11 and others (e.g., from Colombia, Argentina, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Brazil, and South Korea), indicate that this specialty is an international phenomenon and has wide appeal to a variety of differing cultures. Dr. Sisti’s commentary resonates with my impression that surgeons experienced in labiaplasty will testify that the vast majority of patients express a high degree of satisfaction that is equal to or exceeds nearly any other aesthetic procedure. Despite the demand and the safety of the operation as documented by the aforementioned physicians, there are many who question the practice; some have even labeled it misogyny.12 To this end, a 2008 interagency statement (published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS; the United Nations Development Programme; the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa; the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; the United Nations Population Fund; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund; the United Nations Development Fund for Women, and the World Health Organization) sponsored by the World Health Organization, considers genital surgery to “fall under the definition” of female genital mutilation.13 Critics commonly condemn the field by citing that the associated grooming habits (hairlessness) of individuals requesting these procedures indicates an underlying unhealthy desire to seek a prepubescent appearance; however, these cynics also fail to acknowledge the overall tendency and consistency of this practice with women seeking hair removal from other anatomical regions such as the face/lips, axillae, or legs.
I am confident that ongoing reports by investigators such as Dr. Sisti will corroborate the safety of female genital cosmetic procedures conducted by skilled practitioners and bring these into the mainstream. Similar to Dr. Sisti, I believe it should be in the skill set of plastic surgeons. It is my hope that, with time, it will eventually gain acceptance as a procedure that is not unlike breast reduction.14
The author has no disclosure to report and no funding was received to assist in the creation of this communication.
otto J. Placik, M.D.
880 West Central Road, Suite 3100
Arlington Heights, Ill. 60005
1. Oranges CM, Sisti A, Sisti G. Labia minora reduction techniques: A comprehensive literature review. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35: 419–431.
2. Placik OJ, Arkins JP. A prospective evaluation of female external genitalia sensitivity to pressure following labia minora reduction and clitoral hood reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:442e–452e.
3. Placik OJ, Arkins JP. Plastic surgery trends parallel Playboy magazine: The pudenda preoccupation. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:1083–1090.
4. Hunter JG. Labia minora, labia majora, and clitoral hood alteration: Experience-based recommendations. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36:71–79.
5. Triana L, Robledo AM. Refreshing labioplasty techniques for plastic surgeons. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:1078–1086.
6. Mayer HF. Vaginal labiaplasty: Current practices and a simplified classification system for labial protrusion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:705e–706e.
7. Gress S. Composite reduction labiaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:674–683.
8. Veale D, Naismith I, Eshkevari E, et al. Psychosexual outcome after labiaplasty: A prospective case-comparison study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:831–839.
9. Giraldo F, González C, de Haro F. Central wedge nymphectomy with a 90-degree Z-plasty for aesthetic reduction of the labia minora. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1820–1825.
10. Felicia Yde A. Labial surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2007;27:322–328.
11. Choi HY, Kim KT. A new method for aesthetic reduction of labia minora (the deepithelialized reduction labioplasty). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:419–422.
12. Jeffreys S. Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West
. 2014.New York: Routledge.
13. OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement
. 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization; Available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/statements_missions/Interagency_Statement_on_Eliminating_FGM.pdf
. Accessed May 4, 2016.
14. Hunter JG. Commentary on: Labia minora reduction techniques: A comprehensive literature review. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35:432–433.
Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.
Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.
Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.
We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.
The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.