Advertisement

A Summary of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting for the Pediatric and Adolescent Care Provider

Published:November 15, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2022.11.002

      Abstract

      The World Health Organization defines Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting(FGM/C) as any medically unnecessary procedure involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs. It is a violation of human rights and associated with serious complications and lifelong impact on health. This review article summarizes for the pediatric and adolescent care provider the incidence world wide, the impact of cultural practices, appropriate screening and diagnosis, interventions and treatment along with legal and ethical issues.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. (Female Genital Mutilation Evidence)
        • Organization, W.H
        Brief D.o.R.H.a WHO Human Reproduction Programme. Editor. Geneva, Switzerland2019
      2. Lightfoot-Klein, H., Prisoners of Ritual: Some Contemporary Developments in the History of Female Genital Mutilation, in Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project. 1991: Worcester, MA.

        • Shah G.
        • Susan L.
        • Furcroy J.
        Female circumcision: History, medical and psychological complications, and initiatives to eradicate this practice.
        Can J. Urol. 2009; 16: 4576-4579
        • United
        Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change.
        UNICEF, New York2013
        • Mather M.
        • Feldman-Jacobs C.
        Women and Girls at Risk for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States.
        Population Reference Bureau: Washington, DC. 2016;
        • Turkewitz J.
        A Fight as U.S. Girls Face Genital Cutting Abroad.
        The New York TImes, New York2014
        • Atkinson H.G.
        • Ottenheimer D.
        • Mishori R.
        Public Health Research Priorities to Address Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting in the United States.
        Am J Public Health. 2019; 109: 1523-1527
        • Klein E.
        • et al.
        Female Genital Mutilation: Health Consequences and Complications-A Short Literature Review.
        Obstet Gynecol Int. 2018; (2018)7365715
        • Abdulcadir J.
        • et al.
        Missed opportunities for diagnosis of female genital mutilation.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014; 125: 256-260
      3. Care of women and girls living with female genital mutilation: a clinical handbook., Geneva: World Health Organization.

        • Pauls R.N.
        Anatomy of the Clitoris and the Female Sexual Response.
        Clinical Anatomy. 2015; 28: 376-384
        • Payne C.K.
        • et al.
        International continence society white paper regarding female genital mutilation/cutting.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38: 857-867
        • Simpson R.
        • Murphy R.
        Paediatric vulvar disease.
        Best Practice and Research in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014; 28: 1028-1041
        • Puppo V.
        • Puppo G.
        Anatomy of Sex: Revision of the New Anatomical Terms Used for the Clitoris and the Female Orgasm by Sexologists.
        Clinical Anatomy. 2015; 28: 293-304
        • Berg R.
        • et al.
        Effects of female genital cutting onf physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BMJ Open. 2014; 4
        • Jasmine Abdulcadir M.
        • et al.
        Sexual anatomy and function in women with and without genital mutilation: A cross-sectional study.
        The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 2016; 13: 226-237
        • Chang C.S.
        • Low D.W.
        • Percec I.
        Female Genital Mutilation Reconstruction: A Preliminary Report.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2017; 37: 942-946
        • Madzou S.
        • et al.
        [Reconstructive surgery of the clitoris after sexual mutilation].
        Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2011; 56: 59-64
        • Abramowicz S.
        • et al.
        [Anatomic, functional and identity results after clitoris transposition].
        J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016; 45: 963-971
        • Foldès P.
        • Cuzin B.
        • Andro A.
        Reconstructive surgery after female genital mutilation: a prospective cohort study.
        The Lancet. 2012; 380: 134-141
        • Ali A.H.
        Why we hesitate to protect girls from FGM in the United States.
        AHA Foundation. 2017; (Accessed)
        • Young J
        • Nour NM
        • Macauley RC
        • et al.
        AAP Section on Global Health, AAP Committee on Medical Liability & Risk Management, AAP Committee on Bioethics. Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment of Female Genital Mutilation or Cutting in Girls.
        Pediatrics. 2020; 145 (e20201012): 1-31
      4. United Nations Children's Fund. Female genital mutilation (FGM). Available at: https://data.unicef.org/topic/childprotection/female-genital-mutilation/. Accessed May 12, 2019

        • Goldberg H
        • Stupp P
        • Okoroh E
        • Besera G
        • Goodman D
        • Danel I.
        Female genital mutilation/cutting in the United States: updated estimates of women and girls at risk.
        Public Health Rep. 2012; 131 (2016): 340-347
        • Ahmed MR
        • Shaaban MM
        • Meky HK
        • et al.
        Psychological impact of female genital mutilation among adolescent Egyptian girls: a cross-sectional study.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017; 22: 280-285