SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 6

Pre-pubertal labial adhesion surgery: The first study to compare manual or surgical separation

Mirzaman HUSEYNOV
Pages
991–994
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Additional prospective studies are still needed to strengthen these data.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Labial adhesion (LA) is one of the most common causes of admission to the pediatric surgery outpatient clinic among theprepubertal girls.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of thisstudy is to compare the results of the manual and surgical separation of LA, and to decide which one is superior.Material and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of sixty-six patients with LA operated between July 2016 and Mart 2018by the same surgeon.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Additional prospective studies are still needed to strengthen these data.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Labial adhesion (LA) is one of the most common causes of admission to the pediatric surgery outpatient clinic among theprepubertal girls. There is no consensus on the best interventional technique (manual or surgical separation) for LA. The aim of thisstudy is to compare the results of the manual and surgical separation of LA, and to decide which one is superior.Material and Methods: We reviewed the medical records of sixty-six patients with LA operated between July 2016 and Mart 2018by the same surgeon. The patients were divided into two groups: patients treated with a manual separation technique (group 1) andwith a surgical separation technique (group 2). Patients were evaluated regarding age at presentation, referral indication, symptoms,surgical technique, recurrence and time of recurrence.Results: There were 27 cases in Group 1 and 39 cases in Group 2. There were 14 recurrences in Group 1 (51.8%) and 5 recurrences inGroup 2 (12.8%). The recurrence rate was significantly higher in Group 1. This difference between groups was statistically significant(p=0.0006). The relative risk for recurrence in Group 1 was found to be 4.0444 (OR 7.3231; p=0.0012), and 0.2473 in Group 2 with asignificance level of p=0.0022.Conclusion: The treatment of labial adhesion with the surgical separation technique is superior to manual separation in terms of thepossibility of recurrence. Additional prospective studies are still needed to strengthen these data.

🔖

Cite This Article

HUSEYNOV, M. (2022). Pre-pubertal labial adhesion surgery: The first study to compare manual or surgical separation. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 6, 991–994. https://ajindex.com/articles/447024

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Bacon JL. Prepubertal labial adhesions. Evaluation of a referral population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:327-32
  2. Eyk NV, Allen L, Giesbrecht E, et al. Pediatric vulvovaginal disorders: A diagnostic approach and review of the literature. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31:850-62
  3. Leung AKC, Robson WLM, Tay-Uyboco J. The incidence of labial fusion in children. J Paediatr Child Health 1993;29:235-6
  4. Garden AS. Vulvovaginitis and other common childhood gynaecological conditions. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2001;96:73-8
  5. Bacon JL, Romano ME, Quint EH. Clinical recommendation: Labial adhesions. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2015;28:405-9
  6. McCann J, Wells R, Simon M, et al. Genital findings in prepubertal girls selected for nonabuse: A descriptive study. Pediatrics 1990;86:428-39
  7. Rubinstein A, Rahman G, Risso P, et al. Labial adhesions: Experience in a children’s hospital. Arch Argent Pediatr 2018;116:56-68
  8. Norris JE, Elder CV, Dunford AM, et al. Spontaneous resolution of labial adhesions in pre-pubertal girls. J Paediatr Child Health 2018;54:748-53
  9. Muram D. Treatment of prepubertal girls with labial adhesions. J PediatrAdolesc Gynecol 1999;12:67-70
  10. Capraro VJ, Greenberg H. Adhesions of the labia minora. A study of 50 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1972;39:65-9
  11. Aribarg A. Topical estrogen therapy for labial adhesions in children. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:424-5
  12. Khanam W, Chogtu L, Mir Z, et al. Adhesion of the labia minora-a study of 75 cases. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1978;33:364-5
  13. Cağlar MK. Serum estradiol levels in infants with and without labial adhesions: the role of estrogen in the etiology and treatment. Pediatr Dermatol 2007;24:373-5
  14. Eroglu E, Yip M, Oktar T, et al. How should we treat prepubertal labial adhesions? Retrospective comparison of topical treatments: Estrogen only, betamethasone only, and combination estrogen and betamethasone. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2011;24:389-91
  15. Mayoglou L, Dulabon L, Martin-Alguacil N, et al. Success of Treatment Modalities for Labial Fusion: A Retrospective Evaluation of Topical and Surgical Treatments. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2009;22:247-50
  16. Hutson JM, O’Brien M, Beasley SW, et al. Part IV: Abdomen: anus perineum and female genitalia. in: hutson jm, o’brien m, beasley sw, teague wj, king sk, editors. jones’ clinical paediatric surgery. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. pp. 164- 71
  17. Nurzia M, Eickhorst K, Ankem M, et al. The surgical treatment of labial adhesions in p