Practices and complications of pubic hair removal among Saudi women.

BACKGROUND: Pubic hair grooming, including the complete removal of pubic hair, has become an increasingly common practice, particularly among young women. Although widespread, there is limited data regarding the methods, products, reasons, and complications of pubic hair removal, particularly among Saudi women. The objective was to examine pubic hair removal practices and the prevalence of its complications among Saudi women living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Saudi women between 16 and 60 years of age who had the ability to read and speak Arabic, were eligible to complete an anonymous and self-administered survey on pubic hair removal practices and its complications. RESULTS: Between December 2015 and September 2016, 400 Saudi women completed the survey. The age was 26.3 ± 6.9, 16-58 (mean ± SD, range) years. About three quarters (77.0%) self-removed their pubic hair, while the remainder made use of professional personnel in medical clinics (15.5%), beauty salons (5.3%), and professional services at home (2.2%). Many women (41.8%) used a combination of hair removal methods, with non-electric razor as the most common single method used (33.5%), followed by laser (8.7%), sugaring (6.0%), waxing (4.5%), trimming (2.0%), electric razor (2.0%), and cream (1.5%). Three-quarters of women (75.5%) reported complications, and although they were mostly minor injuries, treatment had to be sought for 17.9% of complications. Multivariable analyses showed that no variables remained correlated with the occurrence of complications (age of starting hair removal, income, BMI, level of education, mode of removal, advice on removal). CONCLUSIONS: Saudi women initiate pubic hair removal in early adolescence. While most complications are minor, close to one in five women experience complications.

Randomized clinical trial between hourly titrated and 2 hourly static oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor.

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is an effective agent for the induction of labor. Existing guidelines recommend oral misoprostol solution 25 µg every 2 hours. However, more research is required to optimize the use of oral misoprostol solution for the induction of labor. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of hourly titrated-dose oral misoprostol solution with static-dose oral misoprostol solution every 2 hours for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: In this randomized controlled study, oral misoprostol solution was administered as (1) 20 µg hourly (≤4 doses) that was increased in the absence of regular uterine contractions to 40 µg hourly (≤4 doses) and then to 60 µg hourly (≤16 doses) or (2) 25 µg every 2 hours until active labor began (≤12 doses). A sample size of 146 women was planned with the use of a projected 95% rate for the primary endpoint (vaginal delivery within 24 hours) for hourly titrated-dose misoprostol and 80% rate for static-dose misoprostol every 2 hours. Safety outcomes included maternal morbidity and adverse neonatal outcomes. RESULTS: From December 2013 to July 2015, 146 women were assigned randomly to treatment. Demographic and clinical factors were similar between groups, except for age. Vaginal delivery was achieved within 24 hours in 47 women (64.4%) who received hourly titrated-doses of misoprostol solution and 48 women (65.8%) who received 2-hourly static-dose misoprostol solution (P=1.00). Rates of vaginal delivery within 24 hours did not differ significantly between treatment groups for women who were nulliparous (P=1.00) or who had postterm pregnancies (P=.66), a Bishop score of ≤3 (P=.84), or oxytocin augmentation (P=.83). Cesarean deliveries were performed within 24 hours in 9 women who received hourly titrated-dose misoprostol solution and 2 women who received 2-hourly static-dose misoprostol solution (P=.056). Pyrexia and meconium-stained liquor occurred more frequently with the hourly titrated-dose regimen. CONCLUSION: The static-dose oral misoprostol solution every 2 hours has similar efficacy as hourly titrated-dose misoprostol solution but with fewer side-effects and lower complication rates.