Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Robotic-assisted peritoneal flap gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) with the da Vinci Xi system has been reported to be a safe alternative to traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty. Utilizing the Single Port (SP) robot system, our surgical approach has evolved. OBJECTIVE:To describe a step-by-step technique for RPGAV using the SP robot and to compare outcomes between Xi and SP systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 145 transgender women underwent RPGAV between September 2017 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed data for patients with a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. SURGICAL PROCEDURE/METHODS:Peritoneal flaps are harvested from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa. The vaginal space is dissected transabdominally. Inverted penile flap with or without scrotal graft is sutured to the peritoneal flaps, which form the neovaginal apex. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 100 (Xi = 47; SP = 53) patients had a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. The mean age was 36.2 (range 16.1-71.4) yr. Average procedure times were 4.2 and 3.7 h in Xi and SP cohorts, respectively (p <0.001). At the mean follow-up of 11.9 (range 6.0-25.4) mo, vaginal depth and width were 13.6 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 2.9-3.8) cm in the Xi group, and 14.1 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 3.5-3.8) cm in the SP group (p =0.07 and 0.04, respectively). Complications included transfusion (6%), rectovaginal fistula (1%), bowel obstruction (2%), pelvic abscess (1%), and vaginal stenosis (7%). CONCLUSIONS:RPGAV using the SP robot reduces operative time by facilitating a dual-surgeon abdominal-perineal approach. There is no difference in complication rates between the two approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We studied the outcomes of robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty with two robot systems. With both systems, patients had good vaginal depth and width at an average follow-up of 1 yr. Surgery time was shorter with the Single Port (SP) robot.

BACKGROUND:To optimize neovaginal dimensions, several modifications of the traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty are described. Options for neovaginal lining include skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneum. Implications of these techniques on outcomes remain limited. METHODS:A systematic review of recent literature was performed to assess evidence on various vaginal lining options as adjunct techniques in penile inversion vaginoplasty. Study characteristics, neovaginal depth, donor-site morbidity, lubrication, and complications were analyzed in conjunction with expert opinion. RESULTS:Eight case series and one cohort study representing 1622 patients used additional skin grafts when performing penile inversion vaginoplasty. Neovaginal stenosis ranged from 1.2 to 12 percent, and neovaginal necrosis ranged from 0 to 22.8 percent. Patient satisfaction with lubrication was low in select studies. Three studies used scrotal flaps to line the posterior vaginal canal. Average neovaginal depth was 12 cm in one study, and neovaginal stenosis ranged from 0 to 6.3 percent. In one study of 24 patients, urethral flaps were used to line the neovagina. Neovaginal depth was 11 cm and complication rates were comparable to other series. Two studies used robotically assisted peritoneal flaps with or without skin grafts in 49 patients. Average neovaginal depth was approximately 14 cm, and complication rates were low. CONCLUSIONS:Skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneal flaps may be used to augment neovaginal canal dimensions with minimal donor-site morbidity. Further direct comparative data on complications, neovaginal depth, and lubrication are needed to assess indications in addition to advantages and disadvantages of the various lining options.

BACKGROUND:Current literature on surgical outcomes after gender affirming genital surgery is limited by small sample sizes from single-center studies. AIM:To use a community-based participatory research model to survey a large, heterogeneous cohort of transmasculine patients on phalloplasty and metoidioplasty outcomes. METHODS:A peer-informed survey of transmasculine peoples' experience was constructed and administered between January and April 2020. Data collected included demographics, genital surgery history, pre- and postoperative genital sensation and function, and genital self-image. OUTCOMES:Of the 1,212 patients completing the survey, 129 patients underwent genital reconstruction surgery. Seventy-nine patients (61 percent) underwent phalloplasty only, 32 patients (25 percent) underwent metoidioplasty only, and 18 patients (14 percent) underwent metoidioplasty followed by phalloplasty. RESULTS:Patients reported 281 complications requiring 142 revisions. The most common complications were urethrocutaneous fistula (n = 51, 40 percent), urethral stricture (n = 41, 32 percent), and worsened mental health (n = 25, 19 percent). The average erect neophallus after phalloplasty was 14.1 cm long vs 5.5 cm after metoidioplasty (P < .00001). Metoidioplasty patients report 4.8 out of 5 erogenous sensation, compared to 3.4 out of 5 for phalloplasty patients (P < .00001). Patients who underwent clitoris burial in addition to primary phalloplasty did not report change in erogenous sensation relative to primary phalloplasty patients without clitoris burial (P = .105). The average postoperative patient genital self-image score was 20.29 compared with 13.04 for preoperative patients (P < .00001) and 21.97 for a historical control of cisgender men (P = .0004). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:These results support anecdotal reports that complication rates following gender affirming genital reconstruction are higher than are commonly reported in the surgical literature. Patients undergoing clitoris burial in addition to primary phalloplasty did not report a change in erogenous sensation relative to those patients not undergoing clitoris burial. Postoperative patients report improved genital self-image relative to their preoperative counterparts, although self-image scores remain lower than cisgender males. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS:These results are unique in that they are sourced from a large, heterogeneous group of transgender patients spanning 3 continents and dozens of surgical centers. The design of this study, following a community-based participatory research model, emphasizes patient-reported outcomes with focus on results most important to patients. Limitations include the recall and selection bias inherent to online surveys, and the inability to verify clinical data reported through the web-based questionnaire. CONCLUSION:Complication rates, including urethral compromise and worsened mental health, remain high for gender affirming penile reconstruction. Robinson IS, Blasdel G, Cohen O, et al. Surgical Outcomes Following Gender Affirming Penile Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Multi-Center, International Survey of 129 Transmasculine Patients. J Sex Med 2021;18:800-811.

OBJECTIVE:To describe a technique for perineal urethrostomy (PU) revision using a posterior thigh propeller flap for a complex repair at high risk for stenosis. METHODS:Our technique utilizes the consistent posterior thigh perforators for a local flap with ideal length and thickness for repair. The stenotic PU is incised. Potential flaps are marked around a perforator blood supply closest to the defect. The flap is then elevated and rotated on its pedicle with its apex placed directly in the defect. Absorbable sutures partially tubularize the flap apex at the level of the urethrotomy which is calibrated to 30 Fr. We subsequently monitored the patient's clinical progress. RESULTS:With 17 months of follow-up the patient is voiding well without complaint, reports improved quality of life with a patent PU. Post void residuals have been less than 100cc. The patient, who has had a long history of urinary tract infections requiring hospitalization, has only reported one infection during follow up which was treated as an out-patient. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:For challenging PU revisions a distant local propeller flap of healthy tissue outside the zone of injury is the ideal choice for length, thickness, and minimal morbidity resulting in excellent clinical results for our patient.

Robotically assisted laparoscopic techniques may be used for proximal and distal ureteral strictures. Distal strictures may be approached with ureteroneocystotomy, psoas hitch, and Boari flap. Ureteroureterostomy, buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, and appendiceal flap ureteroplasty are viable techniques for strictures anywhere along the ureter. Ileal ureteral substitution is reserved for more extensive disease, and autotransplantation is reserved for salvage situations.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To report our multi-institutional, comprehensive experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients with radiation-induced ureteral stricture (RIUS). PATIENTS & METHODS/METHODS:In a retrospective review of our multi-institutional robotic reconstruction database between January 2013 to January 2020, we identified patients with RIUS. Five major reconstruction techniques were utilized: end-to-end (anastomosing the bladder to the transected ureter) and side-to-side (anastomosing the bladder to an anterior ureterotomy proximal to the stricture without ureteral transection) ureteral reimplantation, buccal or appendiceal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, appendiceal bypass graft, and ileal ureter interposition. When necessary, adjunctive procedures were performed for mobility (i.e. psoas hitch) and improved vascularity (i.e. omental wrap). Outcomes of surgery were determined by absence of flank pain (clinical success) and absence of obstruction on imaging (radiological success). RESULTS:Total of 32 patients with 35 ureteral units underwent RUR with median stricture length of 2.5cm (IQR 2-5.5). End-to-end and side-to-side reimplantation were performed in 21 (60.0%) and 8 (22.9%) of RUR's, respectively; while 4 (11.4%) underwent an appendiceal procedure. One patient (2.9%) required a buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, while another needed an ileal ureter interposition. The median operative time was 215 minutes (IQR 177-281), estimated blood loss was 100mL (IQR 50-150), and length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-3). One patient required repair of a small bowel leak. Another patient died from a major cardiac event and was excluded from follow up calculations. At a median follow up of 13 months (IQR 9-22), 30 ureteral units (88.2%) were clinically and radiologically successful. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:RUR can be performed in patients with RIUS with excellent outcomes. Surgeons must be prepared to perform adjunctive procedures for mobility and improved vascularity due to poor tissue quality. Caution must be taken in such reconstructive surgeries, especially with repeat procedures due to the risk of necrosis and failure.

BACKGROUND:Gender-affirming surgery is becoming increasingly more common. Procedures including chest masculinization, breast augmentation, vaginoplasty, metoidioplasty, and phalloplasty routinely generate discarded tissue. The incidence of finding an occult malignancy or premalignant lesion in specimens from gender-affirming surgery is unknown. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review of all transgender patients at their institution who underwent gender-affirming surgery to determine the incidence of precancerous and malignant lesions found incidentally. METHODS:A retrospective review of transgender patients who underwent gender-affirming surgery at the authors' institution between 2017 and 2018 performed by a single plastic surgeon and a single reconstructive urologic surgeon was conducted. Only transgender patients who underwent gender-affirming surgery that led to routine pathologic review of discarded tissue (mastectomy, vaginoplasty, vaginectomy as part of phalloplasty) were included. Charts were reviewed and patient demographics, duration of hormonal therapy, medical comorbidities, genetic risk factors for cancer, medications (including steroids or other immunosuppressants), pathology reports, and cancer management were recorded. RESULTS:Between 2017 and 2018, 295 transgender patients underwent gender-affirming surgery that generated discarded tissue sent for pathologic evaluation. During this period, 193 bilateral mastectomies, 94 vaginoplasties with orchiectomies, and eight vaginectomies were performed; 6.4 percent of all patients had an atypical lesion found on routine pathologic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:Gender-affirming surgery is increasingly more common given the increase in access to care. The authors' review of routine pathologic specimens generated from gender-affirming surgery yielded a 6.4 percent rate of finding atypical lesions requiring further evaluation. The authors advocate that all specimens be sent for pathologic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To update our prior multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft and analyze our intermediate-term outcomes. Although our previous multi-institutional report provided significant insight into the safety and efficacy associated with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft, it was limited by small patient numbers. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional database to identify all patients who underwent robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft between 10/2013-03/2019 with ≥12 months follow up. Indication for surgery was a complex proximal and/or middle ureteral stricture not amenable to primary excision and anastomosis secondary to stricture length or peri-ureteral fibrosis. Surgical success was defined as the absence of obstructive flank pain and ureteral obstruction on functional imaging. RESULTS:Of 54 patients, 43 (79.6 %) patients underwent an onlay, and 11 (20.4%) patients underwent an augmented anastomotic robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft. Eighteen/54 (33.3%) patients previously failed a ureteral reconstruction. The median stricture length was 3.0 (IQR 2.0-4.0, range 1-8) centimeters. There were 3/54 (5.6%) major postoperative complications. The median length of stay was 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) day. At a median follow-up of 27.5 (IQR 21.3-38.0) months, 47/54 (87.0%) cases were surgically successful. Stricture recurrences were diagnosed ≤2 months postoperatively in 3/7 (42.9%) patients, and ≥10 months postoperatively in 4/7 (57.1%) patients. CONCLUSIONS:Robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and excellent intermediate-term outcomes.