Introduction:
Clitoral reconstruction (CR) is a controversial surgical procedure performed for women who have undergone medically unnecessary, often ritualistic genital cutting involving the clitoris. Such cutting is known by several terms; we will use female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). Treatments offered to women affected by complications of FGM/C include defibulation (releasing the scar of infibulation to allow penetrative intercourse, urinary flow, physiological delivery, and menstruation) and CR to decrease pain, improve sexual response, and create a pre-FGM/C genital appearance.
Aim:
In this study, our aim is to summarize the medical literature regarding CR techniques and outcomes, and stimulate ethical discussion surrounding potential adverse impacts on women who undergo the procedure.
Methods:
A broad literature review was carried out to search any previous peer-reviewed publications regarding the techniques and ethical considerations for CR.
Main Outcome Measure:
The main outcome measure includes benefits, risks, and ethical analysis of CR.
Results:
While we discuss the limited evidence regarding the risks and efficacy of CR, we did not find any peer-reviewed reports focused on ethical implications to date.
Clinical Implications:
CR can be indicated as a treatment for pain and potential improvement of associated sexual dysfunction when these have not responded to more conservative measures. Women must be appropriately informed about the risks of CR and the lack of strong evidence regarding potential benefits. They must be educated about their genital anatomy and disabused of any myths surrounding female sexual function as well as assessed and treated in accordance with the current scientific evidence and best clinical practices.
Strength & Limitations:
This is the first formal ethical discussion surrounding CR. This is not a systematic review, and the ethical discussion of CR has only just begun.
Conclusion:
We present a preliminary ethical analysis of the procedure and its potential impact on women with FGM/C. Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, et al. Clitoral Reconstruction After Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Review of Surgical Techniques and Ethical Debate. J Sex Med 2020;17:531-542.
Citing Articles
Unexplored avenues: a narrative review of cognition and mood in postmenopausal African women with female genital circumcision/mutilation/cutting.
Kumar R, Calvo N, Einstein G
Front Glob Womens Health. 2025; 5():1409397.
PMID: 39850363
PMC: 11754282.
DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1409397.
Sensitivity after Clitoral Reconstruction in Patients with Female Genital Mutilation.
von Fritschen U, Strunz C, Scherer R, Fricke A
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024; 12(6):e5851.
PMID: 38881961
PMC: 11177814.
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005851.
Health Care Providers' Readiness to Adopt an Interactive 3D Web App in Consultations About Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Qualitative Evaluation of a Prototype.
Holuszko O, Abdulcadir J, Abbott D, Clancy J
JMIR Form Res. 2023; 7:e44696.
PMID: 37768712
PMC: 10570893.
DOI: 10.2196/44696.
Child genital cutting and surgery across cultures, sex, and gender. Part 2: assessing consent and medical necessity in "endosex" modifications.
Earp B, Abdulcadir J, Liao L
Int J Impot Res. 2023; 35(3):173-178.
PMID: 37085735
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-023-00698-1.
Postoperative Course of Reconstructive Procedures in FGM Type III-Proposal for a Modified Classification of Type III Female Genital Mutilation.
von Fritschen U, Strunz C, Scherer R, von Fritschen M, Fricke A
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(5).
PMID: 36901456
PMC: 10002091.
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054439.
How Canadian Law Shapes the Health Care Experiences of Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting/Circumcision and Their Providers: A Disjuncture Between Expectation and Actuality.
Jacobson D, Grace D, Boddy J, Einstein G
Arch Sex Behav. 2022; 52(1):107-119.
PMID: 36169778
PMC: 9859896.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-022-02349-w.
Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies.
Gruenbaum E, Earp B, Shweder R
Int J Impot Res. 2022; 35(3):202-211.
PMID: 35701657
PMC: 10159853.
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-022-00581-5.
Clitoral reconstruction: challenges and new directions.
Villani M
Int J Impot Res. 2022; 35(3):196-201.
PMID: 35418603
PMC: 10159845.
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-022-00572-6.
Psychological, psychosocial, and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision.
Tye M, Sardi L
Int J Impot Res. 2022; 35(3):242-248.
PMID: 35347302
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-022-00553-9.
Autologous Platelet-Rich Plasma for Clitoral Reconstruction: A Case Study.
Manin E, Taraschi G, Berndt S, Martinez de Tejada B, Abdulcadir J
Arch Sex Behav. 2021; 51(1):673-678.
PMID: 34779981
PMC: 8858308.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-02172-9.
Rethinking Reconstruction: Ethical Standards and Practice Guidelines as a Prerequisite to Clitoral Reconstruction Following Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting.
Abdulcadir J, Manin E, Earp B, Ferguson E, ODey D, Johnson-Agbakwu C
Aesthet Surg J. 2021; 42(2):NP137-NP139.
PMID: 34726752
PMC: 8756079.
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjab383.
Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Resulting in Genital Tract Obstruction and Sexual Dysfunction: A Case Report and Literature Review.
Seidu A, Osman H, Bimpong K, Afriyie K
Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 2021:9986542.
PMID: 34422420
PMC: 8373488.
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9986542.
The benefits and disappointments following clitoral reconstruction after female genital cutting: A qualitative interview study from Sweden.
Jordal M, Sigurjonsson H, Griffin G, Wahlberg A
PLoS One. 2021; 16(7):e0254855.
PMID: 34288962
PMC: 8294499.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254855.
Response to Commentaries: Understanding Women's Responses to Sexual Pain After Female Genital Cutting.
Connor J, Brady S, Chaisson N, Sharif Mohamed F, Robinson B
Arch Sex Behav. 2021; 50(5):1907-1912.
PMID: 34100144
PMC: 11493344.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-02047-z.
Clinical Features Associated with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Pilot Longitudinal Study.
Paslakis G, Farre J, Tolosa-Sola I, Palazon-Llecha A, Dominguez-Cagnon H, Jimenez M
J Clin Med. 2020; 9(8).
PMID: 32707951
PMC: 7463820.
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9082340.
Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation.
Earp B, Johnsdotter S
Int J Impot Res. 2020; 33(2):196-209.
PMID: 32457498
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-0302-0.
Sculptors of African Women's Bodies: Forces Reshaping the Embodiment of Female Genital Cutting in the West.
Johnson-Agbakwu C, Manin E
Arch Sex Behav. 2020; 50(5):1949-1957.
PMID: 32328914
PMC: 8275492.
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-020-01710-1.