BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) holds the potential to revolutionize medicine, offering vast improvements for plastic surgery. While human physicians are limited to one lifetime of experience, AI is poised to soon surpass human capabilities, as it draws on limitless information and continuous learning abilities. Nevertheless, as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in this domain, it gives rise to critical ethical considerations that must be addressed by professionals.
METHODS: This work reviews the literature referring to the ethical challenges brought on by the ever-expanding use of AI in plastic surgery and offers guidelines for its application.
RESULTS: Ethical challenges include the disclosure of use of AI by caregivers, validation of decision-making, data privacy, informed consent and autonomy, potential biases in AI systems, the opaque nature of AI models, questions of liability, and the need for regulations.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus for the ethical use of AI in plastic surgery. Guidelines, such as those presented in this work, are needed within each discipline of medicine to respond to important ethical considerations for the safe use of AI.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

OBJECTIVE: To provide Canadian surgeons and other providers who offer female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) and procedures, and their referring practitioners, with evidence-based direction in response to increasing requests for, and availability of, vaginal and vulvar surgeries and procedures that fall outside the traditional realm of medically indicated reconstructions.
METHODS: Women of all ages seeking FGCS or procedures.
RESULTS: Health care providers play an important role in educating women about their anatomy and helping them appreciate individual variations. Most women requesting FGCS and procedures have normal genitalia, and up to 87% are reassured by counselling. At this time, due to lack of rigorous clinical or scientific evidence of short- and long-term efficacy and safety, FGCS and procedures for non-medical indications cannot be supported. FGCS and procedures are typically provided in the private sector, where costs are borne by the patient.
METHODS: Literature was retrieved through searches of MEDLINE, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library using appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords. The selected search terms represented keywords for FGCS (labiaplasty, surgery, vaginal laser therapy, laser vaginal tightening, vaginal laser, vaginal rejuvenation, vaginal relaxation syndrome, hymenoplasty, vaginal cosmetic procedures) combined with female genital counselling, consent, satisfaction, follow-up, adolescent, and body dysmorphic or body dysmorphia. The search was restricted to publications after 2012 in order to update the literature since the previous guideline on this topic. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies. Studies were restricted to those involving humans, and no language restrictions were applied. The search was completed on May 20, 2020, and updated on November 10, 2020.
METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).
UNASSIGNED: Gynaecologists, primary care providers, surgeons performing FGCS and/or procedures.
CONCLUSIONS:

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of changes in care commissioning policies on National Health Service (NHS)-funded cosmetic procedures over an 11-year period at our centre.
METHODS: The setting was a tertiary care hospital in London regulated by the North Central London Hospitals NHS Trust care commissioning group.
METHODS: We included all patients logged on to our database at the time of the study which was 2087 but later excluded 61 from analysis due to insufficient information.
METHODS: The main outcome measures were the results of tribunal assessment for different cosmetic surgeries which were either accepted, rejected or inconclusive based on the panel meeting.
RESULTS: There were a total of 2087 patient requests considered between 2004 and 2015, of which 715 (34%) were accepted, 1311 (63%) were declined and 61 (3%) had inconclusive results. The implementation of local care commissioning guidelines has reduced access to cosmetic surgeries. Within this period, the proportion of procedures accepted has fallen from 36% in 2004 to 21% in 2015 (χ2; p<0.05, 95% CI).
CONCLUSIONS: Local guidance on procedures of limited clinical effectiveness is a useful, although not evidence-based selection process to reduce access to cosmetic surgery in line with increasing financial constraints. However, patients with a physical impairment may not receive treatment in comparison to previous years, and this can have a negative impact on their quality of life.