4.2 Article

Systematic review of sexual function and satisfaction following the management of vaginal agenesis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 25, Issue 10, Pages 1313-1320

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2316-3

Keywords

Management; Sexual satisfaction; Vaginal agenesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Historically, sexual satisfaction following the management of vaginal agenesis was assessed subjectively. Standardized sexual function questionnaires are being used more frequently as instruments to accurately and more objectively assess the subjective nature of sexual outcomes as part of a more holistic approach to the care of women with vaginal agenesis. Articles concerning the management of vaginal agenesis were systematically reviewed, with specific focus on those that discussed functional outcomes, sexual satisfaction and psychosomatic outcomes, and in particular attempted to measure these outcomes. A total of 6,691 articles on vaginal agenesis were identified, with 106 of these reporting sexual satisfaction and psychosomatic outcomes. Only 1 randomized control trial (RCT) was identified, the remaining articles being made up of case series or case reports. Only 17 articles used standardized objective assessment of sexual satisfaction. While the bowel technique had the longest vaginal length at 12.87 cm, it had the most number of complaints of dyspareunia (4.8 %), stenosis (10.5 %) and the lowest average subjective sexual satisfaction. The Davydov method used standardized sexual function assessments most frequently. This technique had a higher average score than both the bowel vaginoplasty technique in the only RCT and the Vecchietti method in a prospective assessment. Overall, the management of vaginal agenesis requires a multidisciplinary approach to fully support these patients from initial diagnosis, through management decision-making and long-term follow-up, through transition to adulthood.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available