Female genital mutilation and infections: a systematic review of the clinical evidence
- First Online:
- 1.4k Downloads
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a common practice especially performed in women with no anaesthesia or antibiotics and in absence of aseptic conditions. The aim of this systematic review is to explore and analyze for first time in the current literature, the clinical evidence related to the presence of infections in the practice of FGM.
A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was performed. A combination of the terms “female circumcision”, “genital mutilation”, “genital cutting” and “infection” were used. Studies reporting data on the infections related to patients with FGM were included.
A total of 22,052 patients included, in the study, from African countries. The age ranged from 10 days to 20 years. The procedure was done by physicians, paramedical staff, and other specialties. Type I FGM was performed in 3,115 women while 5,894, 4,049 and 93 women underwent Type II, Type III and unknown type of FGM, respectively. Different types of infections were identified including UTIs, genitourinary tract infections, abscess formation and septicemia or even HIV infection. Moreover, most infections were identified in Type III FGM. The isolated pathogens in the different type of infections, were HIV, Clostridium tetani, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Treponema pallidum, Candida albicans, Trichomonas vaginalis, HSV-2, Pseudomonas pyocyanea, Staphylococcus aureus. The univariate risk of infection ranged from 0.47 to 5.2.
A variety of infections can occur after FGM. The management of these complications in a low-income economy can be a great burden for the families.
KeywordsFemale circumcision Mutilation Genital cutting Infection
- 1.WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA (2008) Female genital mutilation: a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement. Geneva WHOGoogle Scholar
- 3.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2008) Female Genital Cutting: Clinical Management of Circumcised Women. Washington DTACoOaGGoogle Scholar
- 4.Gruenbaum E (2001) The female circumcision controversy: an anthropological perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kolucki B (2004) http://www.disabilityworld.org/01-03_04/women/fgm.shtml. KBFGMDWaDS
- 8.Yoder PS, Abderrahim N, Zhuzhuni A (2004) Female genital cutting in the demographic and health surveys: a critical and comparative analysis. ORC Macro, Macro International, Inc., CalvertonGoogle Scholar
- 9.World Health Organisation (WHO) (1995) Female genital mutilation. Report of The WHO Technical Working Group, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dean A, Sullivan Κ, Soe Μ (2008) OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health, Version 2.2.1. Updated 2008/04/06 [cited 2008/09/18]. http://www.OpenEpi.com
- 23.Hassan A (1995) Sudanese women’s struggle to eliminate harmful practices. Plan Parent Chall 2:17–8, 21–2Google Scholar
- 42.European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV (1992) Comparison of female to male and male to female transmission of HIV in 563 stable couples. BMJ 304:809–813Google Scholar
- 46.Boyle EH (2002) Female genital cutting: cultural conflict in the global community. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- 48.FGM Joint Statement W, UNICEF and UNFPA, (1997, Page 4Google Scholar
- 49.Goodwin J-A, David J (2007) HtupofcidywsliscB, “Daily Mail, 2007-JAN-03. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
- 50.Center for Reproductive Rights (2004) Legislation on Female Genital Mutilation in the United States CfRR. http://www.reproductiverights.org/
- 51.Megan C (2004) TiUSAoGM, Womensenews, 2004-FEB-19. http://www.womensenews.org/
- 52.US Department of State (2009) CRoHRPf-I, 25 February, sect. 5—attachment 1Google Scholar