Skip to main content

Female Genital Mutilation / Cutting (FGM/C)

Female genital mutilation / cutting (FGM/C) comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs, for non-medical reasons. WHO and UNICEF estimate > 230 million women and girls alive today have undergone FGM/C across > 30 countries.[1][2] For the reconstructive surgeon and urogynecologist, FGM/C is a structural condition: it determines vulvar/clitoral anatomy, urethral and introital access, sexual function, obstetric risk, and the operative planning for defibulation, clitoral reconstruction, and flap-based vulvar restoration.

WHO Classification​

TypeDescriptionNotes
I — ClitoridectomyIa prepuce only; Ib prepuce + partial/total glans clitoridisClitoral body and crura typically preserved beneath scar — anatomic basis for the Foldès reconstruction
II — ExcisionPartial/total removal of clitoris + labia minora ± labia majora (IIa–IIc)Most common type globally
III — InfibulationNarrowing of the vaginal orifice by apposition of labia minora and/or majora, ± clitoral excision~10% of cases; concentrated in Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, northern Sudan
IVAll other harmful non-medical procedures: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, cauterizationHeterogeneous

The clitoral body (8–10 cm) and crura sit beneath the visible scar even after Type I/II; this anatomic reality is the substrate for clitoral reconstruction.[1][3]

Epidemiology​

  • Pooled global prevalence among women 15–49 in studied countries: ~36.9%; Somalia 99.2% highest in women, Mali 72.7% highest in girls.[4]
  • Pooled sub-Saharan African prevalence across ten high-risk countries: 53.5%.[5]
  • Most procedures occur between ages 4–14; in half of countries with available data the majority occur before age 5.[1]
  • In the United States, the CDC estimates > 500,000 women and girls have undergone or are at risk for FGM/C — primarily through migration from high-prevalence countries.[1]
  • Risk factors: family history (AOR 13.71), lower maternal education (AOR 3.28), rural residence (AOR 2.27), poverty (AOR 1.38).[5][6]
  • Prevalence is declining in most practicing countries but not at a rate compatible with the UN SDG elimination target by 2030.[4]

Health Complications (Reconstructive Focus)​

Complications scale with type (I < II < III) and with infibulation severity.[1][2]

Immediate​

  • Hemorrhage (clitoral dorsal artery or labial branches; reported in 4–19%), hypovolemic shock
  • Sepsis — cellulitis, abscess, gangrene, tetanus
  • Urinary — urethral injury, retention, edema
  • Fractures from physical restraint

Long-term — reconstructive-urology / urogyn relevance​

DomainLesion / sequelOperative implication
UrinaryUrethral stricture, meatal obstruction, recurrent UTI / pyelonephritis, post-void dribblingMay require meatoplasty, urethral dilation, or defibulation to expose the meatus
VulvovaginalIntroital stenosis, apareunia, retained menses (hematocolpos), epidermoid inclusion cysts, post-FGM neuromasDefibulation; cyst excision; neuroma resection or fat grafting
SexualDyspareunia (OR 2.47), reduced satisfaction, reduced lubricationDefibulation; clitoral reconstruction; FGM/C fat grafting
ObstetricProlonged / obstructed labor (OR 2.04), perineal tears (OR 2.63), episiotomy (OR 1.89), PPH, fetal distress, stillbirthAntenatal defibulation, ideally 2nd trimester
Mental healthProbable PTSD in ~55%, depression, anxiety, somatizationMultidisciplinary care before reconstructive surgery

Predictors of PTSD severity include older age at the procedure, sexual dysfunction, and trauma history; psychological resilience is protective.[7][8]

Clinical Management​

The AAP 2020 clinical report is the principal North American policy framework.[1] Key positions:

  • Providers must never perform any form of FGM/C (including "ritual nick").
  • Counsel families against the practice — including before travel ("vacation cutting").
  • Examine external genitalia at every health-supervision visit and document FGM/C type using ICD-10 N90.810–N90.818.
  • Recommend defibulation for all patients with Type III, irrespective of current symptoms.
  • Evaluate for child abuse if FGM/C is suspected to have occurred within the US or by trafficking abroad.

Defibulation (deinfibulation)​

Surgical opening of the infibulated scar to expose the urethral meatus and vaginal introitus.[1][9]

  • Indicated for all Type III patients regardless of symptoms.
  • In pregnancy, ideally performed under spinal anesthesia in the second trimester (up to ~ 34 weeks) to allow healing before labor.
  • Avoid local anesthesia alone — risk of flashback / re-traumatization; prefer regional or general.
  • Very-low-certainty meta-analysis data: defibulation reduces emergency cesarean (OR 0.16) and genital-tract lacerations (OR 0.48) vs non-deinfibulated Type III women.[9]
  • Patient acceptance is high; one series reported 94% would recommend the procedure and 100% were pleased with results.[1]

Clitoral and vulvar reconstruction​

The reconstructive armamentarium has matured into four major techniques, each detailed in the treatment atlas:

  • Foldès clitoral reconstruction — scar excision, suspensory-ligament division, mobilization of the retained clitoral body. Accounts for ~95% of published FGM/C reconstructions (n ≈ 2,938 in the largest series; 51% orgasm at 1 y). Systematic review pooled OR 79.67 for reduction in vulvar/clitoral pain; complication rate ~ 3% (hematoma, infection, suture failure).[10][11]
  • O'Dey anatomical reconstruction with aOAP flap — anterior obturator artery perforator flap recreates labia minora and clitoral hood; significant postoperative reduction in dysmenorrhea, dysuria, dyspareunia (n = 119; FGM/C 36% of indications).[12]
  • Mañero vaginal mucosal graft — the only published non-Foldès alternative for clitoral reconstruction (FSFI 16 → 29).
  • FGM/C fat grafting — Almadori 2025 (n = 13): significant 12-mo improvement in VASS, FGSIS, FSFI, HADS for vulvar-scar / dyspareunia indications.

Evidence certainty across reconstructive techniques is very low in formal SR grading; preoperative sexual-health counseling and multidisciplinary assessment are universally recommended.[10][13] See also the vulvar reconstruction landing / database for cross-indication algorithm placement.

  • US federal: Federal Prohibition of FGM Act 1996 criminalized FGM/C on minors. A 2018 district-court ruling (US v Nagarwala) found the federal statute unconstitutional on commerce-clause grounds. The STOP FGM Act of 2020 subsequently re-criminalized FGM/C at the federal level on revised constitutional basis. 35 states have specific FGM/C criminal statutes.[1][14]
  • Vacation cutting: Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act 2013 criminalized taking a child abroad for FGM/C.
  • International: UN frames FGM/C as torture and a human-rights violation; the 2025 WHO guideline emphasizes integrated health-system, legal, community-education, and survivor-centered approaches.[15]

Culturally Sensitive Communication​

Discussions require cultural humility without compromising the medical-risk and legal messaging. The AAP recommends standardized provider training in identification, treatment, and culturally appropriate communication.[1][16] Defibulation decisions are often staged across multiple visits to address fear, family pressure, and mental-health needs; survivor- and partner-perspectives qualitative work supports flexible timing options.[1][17]

See Also​

References​

1. Young J, Nour NM, Macauley RC, Narang SK, Johnson-Agbakwu C. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of female genital mutilation or cutting in girls. Pediatrics. 2020;146(2):e20201012. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-1012

2. Pallitto C, Ruiz-Vallejo F, Mochache V, et al. Exploring the health complications of female genital mutilation through a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1387. doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21584-z

3. Botter C, Sawan D, SidAhmed-Mezi M, et al. Clitoral reconstructive surgery after female genital mutilation/cutting: anatomy, technical innovations and updates of the initial technique. J Sex Med. 2021;18(5):996–1008. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.02.010

4. Farouki L, El-Dirani Z, Abdulrahim S, et al. The global prevalence of female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of national, regional, facility, and school-based studies. PLoS Med. 2022;19(9):e1004061. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004061

5. Luoga P, Paulo HA, Mbishi JV, et al. Prevalence and determinants of female genital mutilation: current insights from ten at-risk countries in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Public Health. 2025;25(1):1031. doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22279-1

6. Ayenew AA, Mol BW, Bradford B, Abeje G. Prevalence of female genital mutilation and associated factors among women and girls in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2024;13(1):26. doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02428-6

7. Wulfes N, von Fritschen U, Strunz C, et al. Cognitive-emotional aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder in the context of female genital mutilation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):4993. doi:10.3390/ijerph19094993

8. Keles E, Bilge Y, Öztürk M, et al. Mental health outcomes and post-traumatic stress disorder associated with female genital mutilation. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):19489. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-03878-9

9. Okusanya B, Esu E, Nwachuku N, et al. Deinfibulation for improving obstetric, neonatal, gynecologic, and sexual-health outcomes in women and girls with Type III female genital mutilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026;172(Suppl 1):31–47. doi:10.1002/ijgo.70759

10. Meremikwu C, Oringanje C, Moses C, et al. Clitoral reconstructive surgery in women and girls living with female genital mutilation: a systematic review. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026;172(Suppl 1):81–94. doi:10.1002/ijgo.70760

11. Almadori A, Palmieri S, Coho C, et al. Reconstructive surgery for women with female genital mutilation: a scoping review. BJOG. 2024;131(12):1604–1619. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.17886

12. O'Dey DM, Kameh Khosh M, Boersch N. Anatomical reconstruction following female genital mutilation/cutting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(2):426–438. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011026

13. Lurie JM, Weidman A, Huynh S, et al. Painful gynecologic and obstetric complications of female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003088. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003088

14. Bootwala Y. Exploring opposition to ritual female genital cutting since the first U.S. federal prosecution: the 2017 Detroit case. Int J Impot Res. 2023;35(3):179–186. doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00532-0

15. Ehiri JE. Health systems approaches and other multisectoral efforts for primary prevention of female genital mutilation and clinical management of its complications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026;172(Suppl 1):3–8. doi:10.1002/ijgo.70767

16. Hearst AA, Molnar AM. Female genital cutting: an evidence-based approach to clinical management for the primary care physician. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(6):618–629. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.04.004

17. Jones L, Danks E, Costello B, et al. Views of female genital mutilation survivors, men and health-care professionals on timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision: qualitative FGM Sister study. Health Technol Assess. 2023;27(3):1–113. doi:10.3310/JHWE4771