'Botched labiaplasty': a content analysis of online advertising for revision labiaplasty. (2nd October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Learner, Hazel Isabella; Rundell, Caroline; Liao, Lih-Mei; Creighton, Sarah M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. Volume 40:Number 7(2020)
• Page Start: 1000
• Page End: 1005
• Publication Date: 2020-10-02
• Subjects: Labiaplasty -- botched -- revision surgery -- female genital cosmetic surgery -- FGCS; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1679732
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0144-3615

Abstract

Abstract: A new development in female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) is the promotion of revision surgery for 'botched labiaplasty'. This content analysis study reviews the quality of information offered on websites specifically advertising revision labiaplasty. Twelve websites were identified through online searches and were examined for the quality of their clinical information. All sites defined botched labiaplasty as unsatisfactory appearance after labiaplasty. Four gave no further details and five listed asymmetry, irregular labial edges or removal of too much or too little tissue. Four websites described primary botched labiaplasty as 'mutilation'. Inadequacy of the primary surgeon was cited as the cause of botched labiaplasty in 11/12. Only two websites mentioned risks of surgery. Good outcomes were not defined and no website provided outcome data although guaranteed satisfaction was implied in two websites. This study highlights the existence and promotion of services for botched labiaplasty using non-specific and emotive descriptions. These findings suggest that unsatisfactory results from consumers' perspectives are far from uncommon. The same women whose expectations have not been met by primary surgery are now being targeted for repeat surgery with online advertising capitalising on their unchanged motivations. Impact Statement: What is already known on this subject? Female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) is mainly advertised online with labiaplasty as the most commonly performed procedure. A market for labiaplasty revision to correct 'botched' primary procedures is developing. Academic literature and advertising materials are inconsistent when defining indications and determinants of success for labiaplasty or revision. What the results of this study add? A content analysis of websites specifically advertising revision labiaplasty describes the emotive and nonspecific terms used online to promote revision labiaplasty. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The existence of services for botched labiaplasty suggests dissatisfaction is common. Women whose expectations have not been met by primary surgery are targeted for repeat surgery through online advertising capitalising on their potentially unchanged motivations. This study demonstrates the need for clearer outcome data for labiaplasty and highlights the need for better advertising standards for FGCS promotion.