Selecting aesthetic gynecologic procedures for plastic surgeons: a review of target methodology.
【연구 목적】 성형외과 의사가 미용 비뇨기과 수술(aesthetic gynecologic surgery) 중 적합한 중재 방법을 선택할 수 있도록 돕는 것이 본 연구의 핵심 목표이다.
APA
Ostrzenski A (2013). Selecting aesthetic gynecologic procedures for plastic surgeons: a review of target methodology.. Aesthetic plastic surgery, 37(2), 256-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-0031-y
MLA
Ostrzenski A. "Selecting aesthetic gynecologic procedures for plastic surgeons: a review of target methodology.." Aesthetic plastic surgery, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, pp. 256-65.
PMID
23381650
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] The objective of this article was to assist cosmetic-plastic surgeons in selecting aesthetic cosmetic gynecologic-plastic surgical interventions.
[METHODS] Target methodological analyses of pertinent evidence-based scientific papers and anecdotal information linked to surgical techniques for cosmetic-plastic female external genitalia were examined. A search of the existing literature from 1900 through June 2011 was performed by utilizing electronic and manual databases.
[RESULTS] A total of 87 articles related to cosmetic-plastic gynecologic surgeries were identified in peer-review journals. Anecdotal information was identified in three sources (Barwijuk, Obstet Gynecol J 9(3):2178-2179, 2011; Benson, 5th annual congress on aesthetic vaginal surgery, Tucson, AZ, USA, November 14-15, 2010; Scheinberg, Obstet Gynecol J 9(3):2191, 2011). Among those articles on cosmetic-plastic gynecologic surgical technique that were reviewed, three articles met the criteria for evidence-based medicine level II, one article was level II-1 and two papers were level II-2. The remaining papers were classified as level III. The pertinent 25 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There was no documentation on the safety and effectiveness of cosmetic-plastic gynecologic procedures in the scientific literature.
[CONCLUSIONS] All published surgical interventions are not suitable for a cosmetic-plastic practice. The absence of documentation on safety and effectiveness related to cosmetic-plastic gynecologic procedures prevents the establishment of a standard of practice. Traditional gynecologic surgical procedures cannot be labeled and used as cosmetic-plastic procedures, it is a deceptive practice. Obtaining legal trademarks on traditional gynecologic procedures and creating a business model that tries to control clinical-scientific knowledge dissemination is unethical.
[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
[METHODS] Target methodological analyses of pertinent evidence-based scientific papers and anecdotal information linked to surgical techniques for cosmetic-plastic female external genitalia were examined. A search of the existing literature from 1900 through June 2011 was performed by utilizing electronic and manual databases.
[RESULTS] A total of 87 articles related to cosmetic-plastic gynecologic surgeries were identified in peer-review journals. Anecdotal information was identified in three sources (Barwijuk, Obstet Gynecol J 9(3):2178-2179, 2011; Benson, 5th annual congress on aesthetic vaginal surgery, Tucson, AZ, USA, November 14-15, 2010; Scheinberg, Obstet Gynecol J 9(3):2191, 2011). Among those articles on cosmetic-plastic gynecologic surgical technique that were reviewed, three articles met the criteria for evidence-based medicine level II, one article was level II-1 and two papers were level II-2. The remaining papers were classified as level III. The pertinent 25 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There was no documentation on the safety and effectiveness of cosmetic-plastic gynecologic procedures in the scientific literature.
[CONCLUSIONS] All published surgical interventions are not suitable for a cosmetic-plastic practice. The absence of documentation on safety and effectiveness related to cosmetic-plastic gynecologic procedures prevents the establishment of a standard of practice. Traditional gynecologic surgical procedures cannot be labeled and used as cosmetic-plastic procedures, it is a deceptive practice. Obtaining legal trademarks on traditional gynecologic procedures and creating a business model that tries to control clinical-scientific knowledge dissemination is unethical.
[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 해부 | genitalia
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | Obstet Gynecol J 9(3):2178-2179
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | vaginal
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | Obstet Gynecol J
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [RESULTS] A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | Scheinberg
|
scispacy | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Recovery of Function; Surgery, Plastic; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome; Vagina; Vulva