Faculty Bibliography

Surgeons often encounter patients with realistic goals yet who desire unrealistic means of achieving them. This tension is compounded when surgeons consult with patients eager to revise a prior gender-affirming procedure completed by another surgeon. Two key factors of ethical and clinical relevance are that (1) a consulting surgeon's job is complicated when a population-specific evidence base is lacking and (2) a patient's marginalization is exacerbated by their having suffered the downstream effects of compromised initial access to comprehensive, realistic surgical care. This case commentary about revision of gender-affirming phalloplasty canvasses the pitfalls of a limited evidence base and focuses on strategies surgeons can use to help guide consultation. In particular, informed consent discussion may need to reframe a patient's expectations about clinical accountability for irreversible interventions.

Objectives: To describe our multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post-operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging. Results: Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1"“3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation-induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side-to-side reimplant (18.9%), end-to-end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post-operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow-up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0"“30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful. Conclusions: RUR may be performed with good intermediate-term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

UNLABELLED:Penile inversion vaginoplasty is the most common gender-affirming genital surgery performed around the world. Although individual centers have published their experiences, expert consensus is generally lacking. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Semistructured interviews were performed with 17 experienced gender surgeons representing a diverse mix of specialties, experience, and countries regarding their patient selection, preoperative management, vaginoplasty techniques, complication management, and postoperative protocols. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There is significant consistency in practices across some aspects of vaginoplasty. However, key areas of clinical heterogeneity are also present and include use of extragenital tissue for vaginal canal/apex creation, creation of the clitoral hood and inner labia minora, elevation of the neoclitoral neurovascular bundle, and perioperative hormone management. Pathway length of stay is highly variable (1-9 days). Lastly, some surgeons are moving toward continuation or partial reduction of estrogen in the perioperative period instead of cessation. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:With a broad study of surgeon practices, and encompassing most of the high-volume vaginoplasty centers in Europe and North America, we found key areas of practice variation that represent areas of priority for future research to address. Further multi-institutional and prospective studies that incorporate patient-reported outcomes are necessary to further our understanding of these procedures.

BACKGROUND:Insufficient genital tissue has been reported as a barrier to achieving depth in gender-affirming vaginoplasty. The authors sought to characterize vaginal depth and revision outcomes in patients with genital hypoplasia undergoing robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty. METHODS:Retrospective case-control analysis of patients undergoing robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty between September of 2017 and August of 2020 was used. All 43 patients identified as having genital hypoplasia (genital length <7 cm) were included with 49 random controls from the remaining patients with greater than 7 cm genital length. Baseline clinical characteristics and perioperative variables were recorded to identify potential confounders. Outcomes measured included vaginal size reported at last visit and undergoing revision surgery for depth or for vulvar appearance. RESULTS:Patients were well matched other than median body mass index at the time of surgery, which was greater in the hypoplasia cohort by 3.6 kg/m 2 ( P < 0.0001). Patients had a median of 1-year of follow-up, with a minimum follow-up of 90 days. No significant differences in outcomes were observed, with a median vaginal depth of 14.5 cm (interquartile range, 13.3 to 14.5 cm), and a median width of dilator used of 3.8 cm (interquartile range, 3.8 to 3.8 cm). No depth revisions were observed, and an 11% ( n = 10) rate of external revision occurred. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with genital hypoplasia had equivalent dilation outcomes in a case-control analysis with consistent follow-up past 90 days. The robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty technique provides vaginal depth of 14 cm or greater regardless of genital tissue before surgery. Further investigation with patient-reported outcome measures is warranted. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Risk, II.

Objective: The Preserve it And Turn it Inside Out (PATIO) technique has been used for repair of urethrocutaneous fistula (UCF) after hypospadias repair. We demonstrate this technique for the repair of UCF in the adult cisgender and transgender population. This technique preserves and inverts the fistula tract to prevent egress of urine. We present a video detailing our updated surgical technique and outcomes from our single-institution experience. Patients and surgical procedure: A retrospective review of adult patients who underwent PATIO repair for UCF between November 2017 and July 2021 by a single surgeon (LCZ) was performed. A circumferential incision is made around the fistula opening, a figure-of-8 or purse string suture with absorbable suture is placed across the opening, and the suture is pulled through the urethral meatus thereby inverting the fistula tract. The suture is secured to the meatus and the skin overlying the fistula is closed in two layers.
Result(s): Nine patients met criteria with a total of 10 PATIO procedures performed. Six patients were cisgender and three were transgender. Of the 6 cisgender patients, etiology of UCF included penile piercings (4/6) and prior hypospadias repair (2/6). All fistulas were distal. All three transgender patients developed UCF as a result of phalloplasty and fistula location was proximal. Median fistula size was 2.6mm (range 0.6-4.6), median operative time was 55 min (range 29-124), and median estimated blood loss was 5 ml (range 5-50). No intraoperative complications were reported. Three patients underwent adjunctive procedures the time of repair. Overall success rate was 70% with one patient undergoing successful repeat PATIO repair.
Conclusion(s): PATIO repair offers a safe and durable method of UCF repair in adult cisgender and transgender patients with a range of UCF presentations. We report a short operative time, minimal blood loss, minimal need for urethral catheterization, and a 70% success rate. Adjunctive maneuvers may be employed concurrently in complex or recurrent cases.
Funding(s): None.
Copyright

OBJECTIVE:To address instances when there is insufficient remnant tissue to perform revision following canal-deepening gender affirming vaginoplasty revisions as indicated by insufficient depth. Options for lining of the vaginal canal include skin grafts, peritoneal flaps, or intestinal segment. Our center uses robotically harvested peritoneal flaps in vaginal canal revisions. When the peritoneal flap is insufficient for full canal coverage, we use AlloDerm, an acellular dermal matrix, for additional coverage. METHODS:Retrospective analysis of 9 patients who underwent revision RPV with AlloDerm was performed. Tubularized AlloDerm grafts were used to connect remnant vaginal lining to the peritoneal flaps. Revision indications, surgical and patient outcomes, and patient-reported post-op dilation were recorded. RESULTS:Nine patients underwent revision RPV using AlloDerm for canal deepening. Median follow-up was 368 days (Range 186-550). Following revision, median depth and width at last follow-up were 12.1 cm and 3.5 cm, and median increase in depth and width were 9.7 cm and 0.9 cm, respectively. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients had focal areas of excess AlloDerm that were treated with in-office excision without compromise of the caliber or depth of the otherwise healed, epithelialized canal. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:AlloDerm is an off-the-shelf option that does not require a secondary donor site. The use of AlloDerm for a pilot cohort of patients lacking sufficient autologous tissue for revision RPV alone was demonstrated to be safe and effective at a median 1-year follow-up.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes regarding sexual health are lacking or have not been validated for transgender patients following vaginoplasty. The aim of this study is to further characterize the difference in sexual health, genital self-image, and the relationship between them for patients who were pre- and postvaginoplasty. Methods: A community advisory board informed an anonymous online survey utilizing patient-reported outcomes. Pre- and postvaginoplasty respondents were recruited online. Survey measures included the Female Genital Self-Image Scale (FGSIS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System sexual health measures. Welch approximation t tests were performed for FGSIS and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System questions, using Bonferroni correction. Results: A total of 690 respondents prevaginoplasty (n = 525; 76%) and postvaginoplasty (n = 165; 24%) participated. The postoperative cohort, compared with the preoperative cohort, reported higher scores for orgasm (P = 0.0003), satisfaction (P = 0.001), and pleasure (P = 0.002). FGSIS total score was higher among postoperative respondents (79.4% ± 17.1%) than preoperative respondents (50.6% ± 15.1%) (P < 0.0001). Using Spearman rho, no significant correlation between FGSIS total score and any Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System subsectional measures was observed for the postoperative cohort, but a correlation (P <0.001) was observed for the preoperative cohort. Conclusions: Individuals who are contemplating vaginoplasty have worse sexual health and genital self-image than those who underwent vaginoplasty, yet genital self-image does not correlate directly with sexual health. Sexual health is multimodal for each person.