Impact of Anogenital Distance Parameters on Female Sexual Dysfunction

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between anogenital distance (AGD) and female sexual dysfunction. Materials and Methods: The present study was done prospectively between January 2021 - July 2022. All patients filled out the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) score and the Sexual Quality of Life-Female score (SQOL-F). Also, AGD was measured in all patients. Patients were classified into two groups according to FSFI (FSFI <27 and FSFI ≥27) and into three groups according to SQOL-F (SQOL-F 18-51, SQOL-F 52-84, SQOL-F >84). Groups were compared according to age, body mass index (BMI), parity status, anogenital anoclitoral distance (AGDAC), anus to fourchette distance (AGDAF), and genital hiatus (GH). Also, correlation analysis was performed between sexual function scores and AGD. Results: Totally, 280 patients were enrolled into the study and 89 (31.8%) patients had sexual dysfunction according to FSFI. AGDAC (74.7 mm vs 64.6 mm, p= 0.001) and GH length (27.8 mm vs 22.0 mm, p= 0.001) were significantly longer in patients with sexual dysfunction. In addition, GH and AGDAC were significantly shorter in patients with the highest SQOL-F. Correlation analysis showed no significant correlation between AGDAF and sexual function (p= 0.671 for FSFI and p=0.294 for SQOL-F). However, longer AGDAC was significantly and negatively correlated with healthy sexual status (r= - 0.546, p= 0.001 for FSFI and r= - 0.604, p= 0.001 for SQOL-F). In addition, longer GH distance was significantly associated with female sexual dysfunction (p= 0.001 for FSFI and p= 0.001 for SQOL-F). Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that almost one third of women had sexual dysfunction. Also, the present study found that longer AGDAC and GH were significantly associated with female sexual dysfunction and female sexual dissatisfaction according to FSFI and SQOL-F for the first time.

Keywords:

Anogenital distance, genital hiatus, female sexual dysfunction FSFI, SQOL-F,

PDF

___

1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on practice bulletins—Gynecology. Female sexual dysfunction: ACOG practice bulletin clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists, number 213. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134: 1-18. [CrossRef] google scholar
2. Carcedo RJ, Fernandez-Rouco N, Fernandez-Fuertes AA, Martinez-Âlvarez JL. Association between sexual satisfaction and depression and anxiety in adolescents and young adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(3): 841. [CrossRef] google scholar
3. Imprialos KP, Koutsampasopoulos K, Katsimardou A, Bouloukou S, Theodoulidis I, Themistoklis M, et al. Female sexual dysfunction: A problem hidden in the shadows. Curr Pharm Des 2021; 27: 376274. [CrossRef] google scholar
4. Nappi RE, Tiranini L, Martini E, Bosoni D, Righi A, Cucinella L. Medical treatment of female sexual dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 2022; 49: 299-307. [CrossRef] google scholar
5. Maldonado-Carceles AB, Sanchez-Rodriguez C, Vera-Porras EM, Ârense-Gonzalo JJ, Onate-Celdran J, Samper-Mateo P, et al. Anogenital distance, a biomarker of prenatal androgen exposure is associated with prostate cancer severity. Prostate 2017; 77(4): 406-11. [CrossRef] google scholar
6. Toprak T, Şahin A, Akgul K, Kutluhan MA, Ramazanoglu MA, Yilmaz M, et al. The relationship between anogenital distance and lifelong premature ejaculation. Andrology 2020; 8: 353-7. [CrossRef] google scholar
7. Sanchez-Ferrer ML, Prieto-Sanchez MT, Moya-Jimenez C, Mendiola J, Garcia-Hernandez CM, Carmona-Barnosi A, et al. Anogenital distance and perineal measurements of the pelvic organ prolapse (POP) quantification System. J Vis Exp 2018; 139: 57912. [CrossRef] google scholar
8. Ekmez M, Ekmez F. Effect of anogenital distance on stress urinary incontinence. African Journal of Urology 2021; 27: 1-5. [CrossRef] google scholar
9. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, et al. The female sexual function index (FSFI): A multidimensional selfreport instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 2000; 26: 191-208. [CrossRef] google scholar
10. Owiredu WKBA, Alidu H, Amidu N, Obirikorang C, Gyasi-Sarpong CK, Bawah AT, et al. Sexual dysfunction among diabetics and its impact on the SQoL of their partners. Int J Impot Res 2017; 29: 250-7. [CrossRef] google scholar
11. Rahman S. Female sexual dysfunction among muslim women: Increasing awareness to improve overall evaluation and treatment. Sex Med Rev 2018; 6: 535-47. [CrossRef] google scholar
12. Sertkaya Z, Ertaç K,Tokuç E. The relationship between premature ejaculation and anogenital distance. Andrologia 2020; 52: e13571. [CrossRef] google scholar
13. Domenici L, Palaia I, Giorgini M, Piscitelli VP, Tomao F, Marchetti C, et al. Sexual health and quality of life assessment among ovarian cancer patients during chemotherapy. Oncology 2016; 91: 20510. [CrossRef] google scholar
14. Abedi P, Jamali S, Tadayon M, Parhizkar S, Mogharab F. Effectiveness of selective vaginal tightening on sexual function among reproductive aged women in Iran with vaginal laxity: a quasi-experimental study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40: 52631. [CrossRef] google scholar
15. Millheiser LS, Pauls RN, Herbst SJ, Chen BH. Radiofrequency treatment of vaginal laxity after vaginal delivery: nonsurgical vaginal tightening. J Sex Med 2010; 7: 3088-95. [CrossRef] google scholar