Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Hysterectomy is a gynecological procedure sometimes performed as part of the gender-affirming process for transgender and gender-expansive patients assigned female at birth. Our goal was to compare surgical outcomes between patients undergoing gender-affirming hysterectomy and patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders. We then explored the implications of gender-affirming hysterectomy for uterine transplantation. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2009 through 2018. We identified patients undergoing hysterectomy in the United States based on Current Procedural Terminology code. We used the International Classification of Diseases 9 or 10 codes to identify patients with benign menstrual disorders (non-gender-affirming group) and gender dysphoria (gender-affirming group). We compared patient characteristics and surgical complications. RESULTS:Of the 40,742 patients that met inclusion criteria, 526 (1.3%) patients were individuals with gender dysphoria. Compared to patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders, gender-affirming patients were younger, were healthier, had a lower prevalence of diabetes, and were more likely to undergo surgery in the outpatient setting, with shorter time to discharge. Complication rates were similar between groups. Logistic regression controlling for the American Society of Anesthesiology classification determined the difference of return to the operating room was not statistically significant (OR 1.082; 95% CI, 0.56-2.10; p = 0.816). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Gender-affirming hysterectomy has a safety profile similar to hysterectomy performed for benign menstrual disorders. Researchers should further explore the possibility of uterus donation among these patients as they may be suitable candidates.

Use of body mass index (BMI) as a health care metric is controversial, especially in candidacy assessments for gender-affirming surgery. When considering experiences of fat trans individuals, it is important to advocate for equitable divisions of responsibility for and recognition of systemic fat phobia. This commentary on a case suggests strategies for increasing equitable access to safe surgery for all body types. If surgeons use BMI thresholds, simultaneous effort must be made to advocate for data collection so that surgical candidacy criteria are evidence-based and equitably applied.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The United States is witnessing a rapid increase in kidney transplantation (KTx) among adults aged 65 and over. Despite this demographic shift, older adults' perspectives on KTx remain notably absent from the discourse on transplant policy and practice, and very little research has examined older adults' perceptions and experiences of KTx. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Employing a phenomenological approach, this study explored the lived experiences of 10 KTx recipients aged 65 and over. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted, and analyses followed the processes of phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis. RESULTS:Participants reported experiencing an initial disruption of their sense of embodied identity that ranged from mildly unsettling to deeply distressing. However, they described navigating this 'liminal' period and eventually incorporating the donor kidney into their sense of embodied self. Notably, most participants viewed their older age as protective and reported that their lived experience over time enabled them to cope more effectively with the challenges they faced during the post-transplant recovery and adaptation period. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Findings from this study can inform more equitable and age-responsive KTx policy, research and clinical practice and may be extended beyond KTx to other forms of solid organ transplantation, vascularized composite allotransplantation and innovative bioengineered organs.

UNLABELLED:There are over 43 million individuals in the world who are blind. As retinal ganglion cells are incapable of regeneration, treatment modalities for this condition are limited. Since first incepted in 1885, whole-eye transplantation (WET) has been proposed as the ultimate cure for blindness. As the field evolves, different aspects of the surgery have been individually explored, including allograft viability, retinal survival, and optic nerve regeneration. Due to the paucity in the WET literature, we aimed to systematically review proposed WET surgical techniques to assess surgical feasibility. Additionally, we hope to identify barriers to future clinical application and potential ethical concerns that could be raised with surgery. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to June 10, 2022, to identify articles pertaining to WET. Data collection included model organisms studied, surgical techniques utilized, and postoperative functional outcomes. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Our results yielded 33 articles, including 14 mammalian and 19 cold-blooded models. In studies performing microvascular anastomosis in mammals, 96% of allografts survived after surgery. With nervous coaptation, 82.9% of retinas had positive electroretinogram signals after surgery, indicating functional retinal cells after transplantation. Results on optic nerve function were inconclusive. Ocular-motor functionality was rarely addressed. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Regarding allograft survival, WET appears feasible with no complications to the recipient recorded in previous literature. Functional restoration is potentially achievable with a demonstrated positive retinal survival in live models. Nevertheless, the potential of optic nerve regeneration remains undetermined.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:The expanded access (EA) pathway permits patients to be treated with investigational medical products outside clinical trials. Because cancer care is a common indication for which EA is sought and these efforts require physician management, understanding oncologists' perspectives can help illuminate factors influencing patient access. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To learn how oncologists practicing at academic medical centers (AMCs) perceive EA and their role in offering it. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This qualitative study used data from semistructured interviews conducted from February 2020 to September 2021 with a purposive sample of oncologists recruited from large, urban AMCs in the northeast United States. Oncologists who had submitted at least 1 single-patient EA request to the institutional review boards at the University of Pennsylvania, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, NYU Langone Health, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from January 1, 2014, through January 31, 2020, were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to March 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Interviews focused on oncologist practice demographics, experience with EA, factors relevant to decisions to pursue EA and comfort with those decisions, perspectives on oncologists' role in EA, perspectives on the FDA's role, and the Right to Try pathway to access investigational drugs. Results/UNASSIGNED:Eligible oncologists were interviewed until thematic saturation was reached, resulting in 25 interviews; most participants were women (15 participants [60%]), reported primarily treating adult patients (15 participants [60%]), had more than 10 years of clinical experience (16 participants [64%]), and had submitted at least 2 single-patient EA requests to their institutional review boards during the relevant period (14 participants [56%]). Oncologists viewed EA as an important tool for securing what they determined to be the best treatment option for their patients based on their own expert assessment of available data. Interviewees reported that they would rather access interventions as commercially available products or through clinical trials; however, if the preferred option was not available through these means, they viewed pursuit of EA as part of their obligation to patients, while often recognizing the potential for inequities in the broader patient population beyond their institutions. Participating oncologists felt confident pursuing investigational drugs for treatment use, despite the absence of FDA marketing approval, and did not necessarily view EA as a last resort. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:These findings indicate that oncologists practicing in large academic settings sought to treat patients with the interventions they deemed most likely to be beneficial, regardless of approval status. As such, they viewed EA as an unexceptional means to obtain promising products, although it remains unclear whether their confidence in evaluating investigational treatments was justified. Future research should examine whether oncologists outside large AMCs share this confidence, as differences may influence patient access to the EA treatment pathway.