Evaluation of anogenital injuries using white and UV-light among adult volunteers following consensual sexual intercourse

ObjectivesNew clinical forensic examination techniques for sexual assaults have not been introduced over the last few decades. We evaluated the benefit of ultraviolet light compared to white light for detecting minor anogenital injuries and scars, following consensual sexual intercourse among adult volunteers.DesignA prospective study comparing female genital findings utilising white and ultraviolet light. A colposcopy with photographic documentation was used.SettingPersonal invitation to healthcare students, hospital employees or acquaintances to volunteer for a gynecological examination, with a focus on clinical forensic aspects.ParticipantsEighty-eight adult female volunteers were recruited for the study. The examination was performed after consensual intercourse. Age ranged from 20 to 52 years (median 26.5 years).Main outcome measuresPresence of acute findings and scars in the genital area using white and UV-light.ResultsAcute genital injury rate was 14.8% under white light colposcopy and 23.0% using UV light. Submucosal hemorrhages in the genital area were documented significantly better under UV-light than white light (14.9% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.016), whereas petechiaes (4.5%) and abrasions (2.3%) were detected using either method. UV-light revealed significantly more often delivery-associated genital scars compared to white light (39.8% vs. 31.8%; p = 0.016). Furthermore, 10 out of 31 (33.3%) women had no residual anogenital skin or mucosal surface findings, despite a prior episiotomy or rupture of the vaginal outlet wall during delivery, supporting its enormous ability to heal even after major trauma.ConclusionsUV-light may provide additional value for the evaluation of physical findings in clinical forensic examinations after sexual assault, and is especially useful in detecting otherwise invisible early submucosal hemorrhages and scars.