Genital Piercings: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Implications for Urologists

ObjectiveTo provide quantitative and qualitative data that will assist evidence-based decision making for men and women with genital piercings (GP) when they present to urologists in ambulatory clinics or office settings. Currently many persons with GP seek nonmedical advice.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive 35-year (1975-2010) longitudinal electronic literature search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OVID) was conducted for all relevant articles discussing GP.ResultsAuthors of general body art literature tended to project many GP complications with potential statements of concern, drawing in overall piercings problems; then the information was further replicated. Few studies regarding GP clinical implications were located and more GP assumptions were noted. Only 17 cases, over 17 years, describe specific complications in the peer-reviewed literature, mainly from international sources (75%), and mostly with “Prince Albert” piercings (65%). Three cross-sectional studies provided further self-reported data.ConclusionPersons with GP still remain a hidden variable so no baseline figures assess the overall GP picture, but this review did gather more evidence about GP wearers and should stimulate further research, rather than collectively projecting general body piercing information onto those with GP. With an increase in GP, urologists need to know the specific differences, medical implications, significant short- and long-term health risks, and patients concerns to treat and counsel patients in a culturally sensitive manner. Targeted educational strategies should be developed. Considering the amount of body modification, including GP, better legislation for public safety is overdue.