The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) Vulvar Awareness Day Campaign: Knowledge of Vulvovaginal Diseases Among Italian Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate vulvovaginal disease (VVD) awareness in Italian obstetrics and gynecology (Ob/Gyn) residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 25-question survey on VVD basic knowledge (17 questions) and willingness to improve it (8 questions) was distributed through Ob/Gyn resident online group chats, from different Italian Universities in January 2023. A total number of 250 residents were invited to participate; 124 responses were obtained (response rate: 50%). Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics through REDCap. RESULTS: Overall, 87 of the 124 respondents (70%) fully completed the questionnaire and represented the study group. Residents were distributed among years of residency: 15% first year, 31% second year, 23% third year, 11% fourth year, and 20% fifth year. Most (60%) never attended a VVD clinic during residency, with an increasing percentage of attendance in later residency years (15% at first year vs 65% at fifth).Participants reported low knowledge of vulvar precancerous lesions and vulvoscopy but better knowledge of vaginitis, vulvar self-examination, and lichen sclerosus. Of the respondents, 50% were not satisfied with the education provided during residency, and more than 60% lacked confidence in managing VVD.All participants expressed a strong desire to improve their knowledge and skills, with 100% agreeing that every gynecologist should know the "basics" and 98% wanting to improve their knowledge through webinars (45%), lessons (34%), newsletters, and videos (19%). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a significant need to improve VVD knowledge among Italian Ob/Gyn residents. Further efforts are necessary to provide information about VVD and comprehensive training programs in Italian Universities.

Vulval lichen sclerosus: An Australasian management consensus.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Vulval lichen sclerosus (VLS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition predominantly affecting the anogenital region in women and children. To date, there is lack of agreement amongst experts on a severity scale to aid assessment, research and treatment stratification on VLS. Furthermore, literature on best practice for long-term management of VLS is lacking. The aim of this consensus is to provide broad guidelines on the short and long-term management of VLS. METHODS: An initial focus group of Australasian experts in vulval dermatology developed a draft consensus statement for the management of VLS. Based on the results of the draft statement, a consensus panel of 22 Australasian experts, comprised of the initial and additional members, participated in an anonymous four-stage eDelphi process. Round 1 involved generation and voting on statements from the draft consensus statement developed by the focus group. In Rounds 2, 3 & 4, panel members were presented formal feedback from previous rounds and asked to indicate their level of agreement. Consensus was reached if there was ≥70% agreement on the importance of an item in the 4 (agree) to 5 (strongly agree) range. RESULTS: The expert panel, with a total of 504 collective years of experience in the field of VLS, reached consensus on a core set of 51 management statements related to diagnosis, severity, initial and long-term management, follow-up, and complications of VLS. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified a set of management statements for VLS that may be useful in clinical practice in the Australasian population.

International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease Recommendations Regarding Female Cosmetic Genital Surgery.

Female genital cosmetic surgeries (FGCSs) and procedures are increasingly being advertised as common, simple, and complication-free, capable of not only improving aesthetic appearance but also increasing self-esteem and sexual pleasure.Guidelines for physicians and clear, scientifically correct information for patients must be made available, to minimize the number of ineffective or deleterious procedures.The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease positions/recommendations regarding FGCS are as follows:1. There is a wide variation regarding genital normalcy; providers must be able to explain this to women.2. There are no data supporting FGCS including, G-spot augmentation, hymenoplasty, vulvar and perianal bleaching/whitening, vaginal tightening procedures, and other procedures aimed at increasing sexual function.3. Women should not be offered FGCS before the age of 18 years.4. Women undergoing FGCS should be evaluated by a provider with expertise in vulvovaginal diseases, including attention to their psychological, social, and sexual context. Evaluation by an experienced mental health provider should be considered when the motivation for seeking surgery and/or expectations are not clear or realistic.5. Female genital cosmetic surgery is not exempt from complications.6. Informed consent must always be obtained.7. Surgeons performing FGCS should refrain from solicitous advertising or promoting procedures without scientific basis, including on Web sites.8. Surgeons should not perform surgery that they do not agree with and explain their rationale/position when pressured by patients.9. The genital surgeon must be adequately trained in performing FGCS including knowledge of the anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of the vulva, vagina and adjacent organs.

Fissures, Herpes Simplex Virus, and Drug Reactions: Important Erosive Vulvar Disorders.

Vulvar fissures, excoriations, and erosions are common problems resulting from a variety of etiologies, many involving other mucosal and cutaneous sites. We present historical and examination features and useful investigations that can help establish a diagnosis so that definitive therapy can be instituted. Vulvar involvement also can be part of life-threatening conditions that require hospital admission and a multidisciplinary approach for optimal patient care. The clinical morphology of these examination findings and response to therapy can be modified by various host factors, particularly immune status, and atypical presentations and responses to therapy should always prompt patient reevaluation.

Comorbid Vulvar Lichen Planus and Lichen Sclerosus.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study are to assess the histopathologic characteristics of vulvar biopsies consistent with lichen planus (LP) in women with a previous or concurrent histopathologic diagnosis of vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS) and to describe the clinical features of comorbid LP and LS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were included if a diagnosis of LP was confirmed after review of the hematoxylin and eosin slides and the histopathology reporting LS noted a band of abnormal collagen. Data were collected on anatomic site, clinical appearance, histopathology, microbiology, treatment, and follow-up. RESULTS: There were 31 cases with a mean age of 69.5 years. Thirty specimens showed erosive LP, of which 22 were from inner labium minus and 8 from vestibule. There were no significant differences between biopsy site in epithelial thickness, erosion, lymphocytic infiltrate, or basal layer pattern. One third of cases showed a regenerative pattern of LP. Of the 26 patients with clinical records available, erythema at the biopsy site was noted in all cases; in 23 the notes specified central erythema and peripheral pallor. Forty-six percent were prescribed topical corticosteroids before biopsy. All 26 were treated with topical corticosteroids, 23% were prescribed antimycotics, and 38% required other supplemental therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbid vulvar LP and LS are not rare; clinicians suspecting one should evaluate for the other and consider separate biopsies of morphologically distinct areas. Clinicopathological correlation is an invaluable tool in assessing biopsies when both diagnoses are suspected, because the regenerative pattern of LP may otherwise be overlooked or misdiagnosed.

The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) Terminology of Vulvar Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of terminology for vulvar intraepithelial lesions has been significant over the years, because it has affected diagnosis, treatment, and research. The introduction of the Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) in 2012 raised 2 concerns in relation to vulvar lesions: firstly, the absence of reference to "differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia" (differentiated VIN) could lead to its being overlooked by health care providers, despite its malignant potential. Secondly, including the term "low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" (LSIL) in LAST recreated the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for benign, self-limiting lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) assigned the terminology committee the task of developing a terminology to take these issues into consideration. The committee reviewed the development of terminology for vulvar SILs with the previous 2 concerns in mind and reviewed several new terminology options. RESULTS: The final version accepted by the ISSVD contains the following: 1) Low-grade SIL of the vulva or vulvar LSIL, encompassing flat condyloma or human papillomavirus effect. 2) High-grade SIL or vulvar HSIL (which was termed "vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia usual type" in the 2004 ISSVD terminology). 3) Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type. CONCLUSION: The advantage of the new terminology is that it includes all types of vulvar SILs, it provides a solution to the concerns in relation to the application of LAST to vulvar lesion, and it is in accordance with the World Health Organization classification as well as the LAST, creating unity among clinicians and pathologists.

The 2015 International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) Terminology of Vulvar Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of terminology for vulvar intraepithelial lesions has been significant over the years, because it has affected diagnosis, treatment, and research. The introduction of the Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) in 2012 raised 2 concerns in relation to vulvar lesions: firstly, the absence of reference to "differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia" (differentiated VIN) could lead to its being overlooked by health care providers, despite its malignant potential. Secondly, including the term "low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion" (LSIL) in LAST recreated the potential for overdiagnosis and overtreatment for benign, self-limiting lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD) assigned the terminology committee the task of developing a terminology to take these issues into consideration. The committee reviewed the development of terminology for vulvar SILs with the previous 2 concerns in mind and reviewed several new terminology options. RESULTS: The final version accepted by the ISSVD contains the following:•Low-grade SIL of the vulva or vulvar LSIL, encompassing flat condyloma or human papillomavirus effect.•High-grade SIL or vulvar HSIL (which was termed "vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia usual type" in the 2004 ISSVD terminology).•Vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, differentiated type. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of the new terminology is that it includes all types of vulvar SILs, it provides a solution to the concerns in relation to the application of LAST to vulvar lesion, and it is in accordance with the World Health Organization classification as well as the LAST, creating unity among clinicians and pathologists.

Perianal lichen dermatoses: A review of 60 cases.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic range of lichen dermatoses of the perianus, their extent, and response to treatment. METHODS: We reviewed perianal biopsies submitted to a tertiary referral pathology service between January 2010 and July 2014, interpreted as 'lichen' or 'lichenoid'. We collected data on patients' characteristics, referring specialty, extent of lesion and response to treatment. RESULTS: During the study period, 60 perianal biopsies met our inclusion criteria. The distribution of diagnoses was lichen sclerosus (LS) in 25/60 (42%), lichen simplex chronicus (LSC) in 23/60 (38%), lichen planus (LP) in 10/60 (17%), and a non-specific lichenoid reaction in 2/60 (3%). Eleven of 25 cases of LS (44%) showed superimposed LSC. Of 10 LP cases, nine (90%) were hypertrophic and three of these showed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia; none were erosive LP. Compared with patients in the LS and LSC groups, those with LP were more likely to have a localised lesion. Topical steroids were prescribed in 91% cases with treatment data available, and 98% of treated patients who returned for follow up had improved or their disease was resolved. CONCLUSIONS: We encountered a spectrum of perianal lichen dermatoses, with LS, LP and LSC all represented. LS biopsied at the perianus is often lichenified. Hypertrophic LP is a common form of LP at the perianus.

Vulvar Ulcers and Erosions: A Clinical Approach.

Vulvar ulcers have a plethora of potential causes and variable clinical presentations that can prove to be a challenge to any clinician. The terminology of these causes can further add to the difficulty of diagnosis. A clinical approach to diagnosis and management is presented with classification tables and a discussion of the terminology of aphthosis, a common cause of vulvar ulceration.

Vulvar ulcers and erosions--a dermatologist's viewpoint.

Vulvar ulceration can occur as the primary or secondary event in a large variety of conditions. These include infections, autoimmune and/or inflammatory diseases and dermatoses, neoplasias, and conditions with an unknown etiology. A thorough medical history and careful patient examination remain the linchpin of management. Specific microbiological, histological, immunological, and other investigations are often necessary to establish or confirm a diagnosis, but the relevant importance of these will vary in the individual patient. The specific management of each patient will also vary accordingly. Other important factors which will influence the frequency with which any physician will make one of the specific diagnoses include practice location, referral mechanisms, and population demographics. This chapter is written with the generalist dermatologist in mind. Whilst dermatoses are given prime attention, important infections and other conditions are also dealt with. The ultimate aim of the present paper is to provide the generalist dermatologist with a useful tool for the diagnosis and management of a patient that present's with a vulvar ulcer(s).