Table 1.
Literature review for labial adhesion treatments including the current method.
| Method | Advantage | Disadvantage | Follow-up period (month) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative treatment 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 | Minimally invasive. | Longer treatment period. Less effective. |
NA |
| Separation manually or using a device1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 | Minimally invasive. | Risk of re-adhesion. | 1–12 |
| Heineke–Mikulicz suturing technique11 | Minimally invasive. Preventable recurrence. |
Suture failure. Unadaptable to long adhesion. |
6 |
| Vulvo perineal flap12 | Preventable recurrence. Cosmetically natural. |
Highly invasive & high perioperative complication rate. | 18 |
| Z-plasty alone13 | Preventable recurrence. | Cosmetically unnatural. Unadaptable to long adhesion. |
11 |
| Y-V plasty alone15 | Cosmetically natural. | Risk of re-adhesion. | NA |
| The combination of Z and Y-V plasty | Minimally invasive. Preventable recurrence. Adaptable to long adhesion. |
Cosmetically unnatural. Many suture points. Possibility of suture failure. |
8 |