A vaccine to prevent exacerbations in COPD

TO THE EDITOR: The number of vulvoplasty or labioplasty procedures rebated by Medicare Australia has more than doubled over t past 10 yea s; in the Un ted Kingdom, a similar trend was observed in the National Health Service (NHS) (Box). Recent media debate in Australia highlights this as a concerning problem. The community assumes that surgical operations are clinically effective treatments performed for identifiable pathological features. In the context of female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS), there is a blurring between disease and dissatisfaction, the latter being at least partly informed by cultural pressure about physical appearances. In addition, there is an absence of evidence on clinical effectiveness, and an apparent lack of commitment to monitor adverse events. This raises the question of how clinicians justify referring women for FGCS. A recent audit of referral letters for labioplasty in an NHS gynaecology clinic in the UK (University College London Hospitals project no. 03/0173) offers interesting insights. Of the 48 letters reviewed, the mean age of the women referred was 25 years (range, 9–50 years). Complaints about genital appearance were identified in 34/48 (71%) of letters (eg, embarrassment about undressing in public changing rooms). Physical discomfort was mentioned in 23/ 48 (48%) letters (eg, difficulty with activities such as cycling). Sexual problems were mentioned in 21/48 (44%) letters (eg, a reluctance to engage in sexual relationships). In two of the letters, the referrers mentioned disparaging comments by previous sexual partners, and one mentioned harassment by other girls at school. Alarmingly, a further seven letters (15%) alluded to concerns being flagged by the girls’ mothers. Only 77% of referrers reported examining the patient. A third of referrers judged the labia to be “normal”, yet nevertheless requested surgery for their patients. Pejorative language such as “leathery in appearance” or “pendulous and elongated” was used in 12 (25%) of the letters. Medical training may cover basic vulval anatomy, but detailed study of morphology is not included. This knowledge gap would have been less problematic in the past. However, in recent years, where intense marketing of FGCS is contributing to soaring demand, medical practitioners may not be sufficiently informed about female genital anatomy to assess and advise women about their concerns. Reasons for the increasing prevalence of female distress about genital appearance are likely to be complex and rooted in social and cultural changes. In the absence of identifiable diseases, referral for operations may not be the most appropriate way of managing women’s body insecurities.