Pubic Hair Grooming Injuries Presenting to U.S. Emergency Departments

Published:October 05, 2012DOI:


      To describe the demographics and mechanism of genitourinary (GU) injuries related to pubic hair grooming in patients who present to U.S. emergency departments (EDs).

      Materials and Methods

      The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System contains prospectively collected data from patients who present to EDs with consumer product-related injuries. The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System is a stratified probability sample, validated to provide national estimates of all patients who present to U.S. EDs with an injury. We reviewed the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System to identify incidents of GU injury related to pubic hair grooming for 2002-2010. The variables reviewed included age, race, gender, injury type, location (organ) of injury, hospital disposition, and grooming product.


      From 2002 to 2010, an observed 335 actual ED visits for GU injury related to grooming products provided an estimated 11,704 incidents (95% confidence interval 8430-15,004). The number of incidents increased fivefold during that period, amounting to an estimated increase of 247 incidents annually (95% confidence interval 110-384, P = .001). Of the cohort, 56.7% were women. The mean age was 30.8 years (95% confidence interval 28.8-32.9). Shaving razors were implicated in 83% of the injuries. Laceration was the most common type of injury (36.6%). The most common site of injury was the external female genitalia (36.0%). Most injuries (97.3%) were treated within the ED, with subsequent patient discharge.


      Most GU injuries that result from the use of grooming products are minor and involve the use of razors. The demographics of patients with GU injuries from grooming products largely paralleled observations about cultural grooming trends in the United States.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Herbenick D.
        • Schick V.
        • Reece M.
        • et al.
        Pubic hair removal among women in the United States: prevalence, methods, and characteristics.
        J Sex Med. 2010; 7: 3322-3330
        • Tiggemann M.
        • Hodgson S.
        The hairlessness norm extended: reasons for and predictors of women’s body hair removal at different body sites.
        Sex Roles. 2008; 59: 889-897
        • Toerin K.
        • Wilkinson S.
        • Choi P.Y.L.
        Body hair removal: the “mundane” production of normative femininity.
        Sex Roles. 2005; 52: 399-406
        • Schick V.R.
        • Rima B.N.
        • Calabrese S.K.
        Evulvalution: the portrayal of women’s external genitalia and physique across time and the current Barbie doll ideals.
        J Sex Res. 2011; 48: 74-81
        • Bercaw-Pratt J.L.
        • Santos X.M.
        • Sanchez J.
        • et al.
        The incidence, attitudes and practices of the removal of pubic hair as a body modification.
        J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011; 25: 12-14
        • Martins Y.
        • Tiggemann M.
        • Churchett L.
        Hair today, gone tomorrow: a comparison of body hair removal practices in gay and heterosexual men.
        Body Image. 2008; 5: 312-316
        • Boroughs M.
        • Cafri G.
        • Thompson J.K.
        Male body depilation: prevalence and associated features of body hair removal.
        Sex Roles. 2005; 52: 637-644
        • Chang A.C.
        • Watson K.M.
        • Aston T.L.
        • et al.
        Depilatory wax burns: experience and investigation.
        Eplasty. 2011; 11: e25
        • Zoumaras J.
        • Kwei J.S.
        • Vandervord J.
        A case review of patients presenting to Royal North Shore Hospital, with hair removal wax burns between January and November 2006.
        Burns. 2008; 34: 254-256
        • Trager J.D.
        Pubic hair removal—pearls and pitfalls.
        J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2006; 19: 117-123
        • Dendle C.
        • Mulvey S.
        • Pyrlis F.
        • et al.
        Severe complications of a “Brazilian” bikini wax.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 45: e29-e31
      1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. NEISS: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, A Tool for Researchers 2000. Available at: Accessed July 11, 2012.

        • Annest J.L.
        • Mercy J.A.
        • Gibson D.R.
        • et al.
        National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg.
        JAMA. 1995; 273: 1749-1754
        • Hopkins R.S.
        Consumer product-related injuries in Athens, Ohio, 1980-85: assessment of emergency room-based surveillance.
        Am J Prev Med. 1989; 5: 104-112
      2. Schroeder T, Ault K. The NEISS sample (design and Implementation): 1997 to present. Washington DC: US Consumer Product Safety Commission 2001. Available at: Accessed July 11, 2012.

        • Armstrong N.R.
        • Wilson J.D.
        Did the “Brazilian” kill the pubic louse?.
        Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82: 265-266
        • Begier E.M.
        • Frenette K.
        • Barrett N.L.
        • et al.
        A high-morbidity outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among players on a college football team, facilitated by cosmetic body shaving and turf burns.
        Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 39: 1446-1453
        • Roth L.M.
        • Look K.Y.
        Inverted follicular keratosis of the vulvar skin: a lesion that can be confused with squamous cell carcinoma.
        Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2000; 19: 369-373
      3. Marcy N, Rutherford G. Hazards Screening Report: Personal Use Items. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 2005. Available at: Accessed July 11, 2012.