Juliana Straehl Marin

University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Estado de Sao Paulo, Brazil

Are you Juliana Straehl Marin?

Claim your profile

Publications (1)0 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to evaluate the results of neovaginoplasty by a modified McIndoe-Bannister technique and by the non-surgical Frank technique. This retrospective study was conducted on a convenience sample of 25 women with vaginal agenesis undergoing surgical or conservative treatment at an Infant-Pubertal Gynecology Outpatient Clinic. Data were obtained from the medical records. Fifteen women underwent the surgical McIndoe-Bannister modified technique Surgical Group, and 10 women underwent the non-surgical Frank technique Frank Group. The following parameters were considered for comparative analysis between the two samples: vaginometry, surgical and non-surgical complications, and sexual satisfaction after treatment. Sexual satisfaction was assessed by a simple question: How is your sex life? There were differences related to vaginal length before and after performing exercises in both Frank Group (initial vaginal length 2.4±2.0 cm versus 6.9±1.1 cm after treatment, p<0.0001) and Surgical Group (initial vaginal length 0.9±1.4 cm versus 8.0±0.8 cm after treatment, p<0.0001). Increased vaginal length was observed in Surgical Group compared to Frank Group (Frank Group=7.0±0.9 cm versus Surgical Group=8.0±0.8 cm, p=0.0005). Forty percent of Surgical Group women had surgical complications versus no complications with the Frank technique. All women reported to be satisfied with their sexual life. The present data indicate that both the surgical and Frank techniques are effective for the treatment of vaginal agenesis, resulting in the construction of a vagina that pewrmits sexual intercourse and sexual satisfaction. The favorable aspects of the Frank technique are related to its low cost and to the low rates of major complications.
    Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetrićia: revista da Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 06/2012; 34(6):274-7.