Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:Transmasculine individuals may not have undergone gender-affirming mastectomy and retain natal breast tissue. Our center offers simultaneous oncologic mastectomy with gender-affirming reconstruction to patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer. This study is the first reported series of concurrent gender-affirming and oncologic mastectomies. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy at a single institution from February 2017 to October 2021 was performed. Patients were included who had breast cancer diagnoses or pathologic lesions preoperatively. Demographic factors, comorbidities, surgical details, and oncologic history were collected. Both plastic surgery and breast surgery were present for the gender-affirming oncologic mastectomies. Results/UNASSIGNED:Five patients were identified who presented for gender-affirming mastectomy in the context of breast pathologies. Average patient age was 50.2 ± 14.8 years, and no patients used testosterone at any time. Two (40%) patients had a prior breast surgery that included a breast reduction in one patient and breast conserving lumpectomies in another. Sentinel lymph node biopsies were performed in all patients. Only one patient had a positive sentinel lymph node and was subsequently referred for postoperative radiation and chemotherapy. No oncologic recurrence has been detected with 20.6 and 10.0 months of mean and median follow-up. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:When performed in a multidisciplinary and collaborative setting with breast surgeons and plastic surgeons, oncologic mastectomy can be performed safely while concurrently offering patients an aesthetic gender-affirming reconstructive outcome.

The use of body mass index (BMI) to determine eligibility for gender-affirming surgery in transgender and nonbinary individuals has been contested. While BMI thresholds are often meant to be protective, restricting patients from access to surgery can also cause harm. There is a rationale for the continued use of BMI, but the inherent problems with it must also be recognized, including how weight stigma impacts patients' access to gender-affirming surgery and influences clinical care. This article uses a narrative review of current literature to discuss how high BMI affects surgical outcomes in gender-affirming genital surgeries, as well as analogous procedures, existing de facto BMI thresholds, and how to both minimize the harms of proceeding with surgery in patients with a high BMI or the harms of delaying for weight loss. BMI factors into surgical decision-making based on the existing literature, which demonstrates that high BMI is associated with increased surgical risk, including higher incidences of surgical site infections and poor wound healing, as well as the possibility of free flap complications, which are a component of certain genital procedures. This patient population is at higher risk for eating disorders, and it is prudent to find alternatives to requiring patient self-monitored weight management. The impacts of weight stigma should be considered when treating gender-affirming surgery patients, and further data and research are needed to augment shared decision-making and lead to practice change.

BACKGROUND:Vaginoplasty is a gender-affirming procedure for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients who experience gender incongruence. This procedure reduces mental health concerns and enhances patients' quality of life. A systematic review investigating the sexual health outcomes of vaginoplasty has not been performed. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate sexual health after gender-affirming vaginoplasty for TGD patients. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were searched, unrestricted by dates or study design. METHODS:We included primary literature that incorporated TGD patients, reported sexual health outcomes after vaginoplasty intervention and were available in English. Outcomes included at least one of these sexual health parameters: sexual desire, arousal, sensation, activity, secretions, satisfaction, pleasure, orgasm, interferences, or aids. RESULTS:Our search yielded 140 studies with 12 different vaginoplasty surgical techniques and 6,953 patients. The majority of these studies were cross-section or retrospective cohort observational studies (66%). 17.4%-100% (median 79.7%) of patients (n = 2,384) were able to orgasm postoperatively regardless of revision or primary vaginoplasty techniques. Female Sexual Function Index was the most used standardized questionnaire (17 studies, ranging from 16.9 to 28.6). 64%-98% (median 81%) of patients were satisfied with their general sexual satisfaction. The most common interference of sexual activity was dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS:The heterogenous methods of measuring sexual outcomes reflect the difficulty in comparing single-center surgical outcomes, encouraging the need for a standardized and validated metric for reporting sexual health after vaginoplasty for TGD patients. The most common sexual health parameter reported is sexual activity while therapeutic aids and pleasure were the least reported parameters. Future studies are needed to improve and expand methods of measuring sexual health, including prospective studies, validated questionnaires, and inclusive metrics. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO 01/01/2021: CRD42021224014.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the outcomes of single-stage and staged repairs in properly selected patients with phalloplasty anastomotic strictures. METHODS:A bi-institutional retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent anastomotic stricture repairs between 7/2014-8/2020. Those who had prior augmented urethroplasties or poorly vascularized tissue underwent two-stage repairs (Group-2), all others underwent single-stage repair with a double-face (dorsal inlay and ventral onlay) buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (Group-1). Postoperatively, urethral patency and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed. RESULTS:Twenty-three patients with anastomotic strictures were identified. Fourteen patients met inclusion criteria and had 1-year follow-up (9 in Group-1; 5 in Group-2). Nine patients (64%) had prior failed interventions (56% Group-1; 80% Group-2). At a mean follow-up of 33.9 (Group-1) and 35.2 months (Group-2) there were two stricture recurrences in Group-1 (22%) and none in Group-2. PROMs were completed by 12 patients. All patients reported the ability to void standing. Post-void dribbling was present in the majority of patients (7/7 Group-1; 2/4 in Group-2). Mean IPSS was 3.9 (0-14) for Group-1 and 1 (0-3) for Group-2. All reported at least a moderate improvement in their condition on GRA (Group-1 +3 71%, +2 29%; Group-2 +3 100%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Single-stage repairs are feasible for patients with anastomotic strictures who have well vascularized tissue and no prior single-stage buccal mucosa augmented urethroplasty failures. Staged repairs are feasible for patients with poor tissue quality. Proper patient selection is important for successful reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION:In May 2014, the US Department of Health and Human Services prohibited insurance discrimination of transgender individuals. Despite this, insurance plans often lack explicit guidelines on gender transition-related care and coverage of surgical procedures is extremely varied. We evaluated the evolution of insurance coverage of gender-affirming care following the 2014 legislative change. METHODS:Insurance providers were selected based on company market share. We conducted a Web-based search and telephone interviews to identify the corresponding policies related to gender-affirming health care. We compared policy changes made before and after the 2014 US Department of Health and Human Services decision. RESULTS:Of the 92 insurers surveyed, 7% did not have a policy, and 315 policy revisions were documented. After the legislation, a significantly higher proportion of policy revisions were related to coverage of services (36% vs 11%, P < 0.0001), removal of existing criteria significantly decreased (23% vs 49%, P = 0.0044), and addition of criteria unrelated to international standards sharply increased (32% vs 2%, P = 0.0002). This resulted in reduced coverage of facial feminization, hair transplantation, laryngochondroplasty, and voice modification surgery. However, nipple reconstruction experienced increased coverage. The percentage of revisions to add preauthorization criteria to meet international standards (49% vs 45%, P = 0.6714) or to change terminology (37% vs 27%, P = 0.1055) were similar before and after the legislation. CONCLUSIONS:After the transformative legislation in 2014, an increasing number of insurance companies established gender transition-related policies. As more patients seek gender-affirming care, insurers deviate from international guidelines and create additional benchmarks that may act as barriers to care.