Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Hematomas are reported to be the most common immediate complication in patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy, with rates substantially higher than those associated with other types of breast surgery. This study sought to examine the breadth of current literature and provide evidence-based explanations regarding the development of hematomas in chest masculinizing surgery and technical considerations for reducing their incidence. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted to identify all articles related to gender-affirming mastectomy published through September 2021. Literature search yielded 2,661 articles for screening, of which 20 met inclusion criteria. Themes from the selected articles were compiled to generate consensus statements qualified by associated level of evidence (LOE). RESULTS:The rate of hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy is reported in the literature ranging from 0% to 31.2%. The use of more limited, nipple-sparing incisions is associated with a higher hematoma rate than mastectomy with free nipple grafting (Level III). There is no conclusive evidence indicating any relationship between the use of masculinizing hormones and the incidence of hematoma (Level IV). Factors such as body mass index (Level III) and breast size (Level III) were not found to influence hematoma risk, though nicotine use (Level IV) was significantly associated with the incidence of hematoma. CONCLUSIONS:Hematoma is a known complication following gender-affirming mastectomy. The use of limited incision approaches has the strongest association with an increased risk of hematoma. There is no evidence indicating an association between hormone use (i.e., testosterone) and hematoma incidence. Future studies are needed to better define factors, interventions, and protocols to reduce the rate of hematoma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

SUMMARY:The surgical treatment of gender incongruence with gender-affirming surgery requires a sophisticated understanding of the substantial diversity in patient expectations and desired outcomes. There are patients with gender incongruence who desire surgical intervention to achieve the conventional bodily configuration typical for cisgender men and women and those who desire surgery without the goal of typical cisgender presentation. Proper communication regarding diverse expectations poses a challenge to those unfamiliar with the nuances of this heterogeneous population; such difficulties have led to mistakes during patient care. Based on the lessons learned from these experiences, the authors provide conceptual recommendations with specific examples to account for cultural context and conceptions of gender within surgical practice and scientific research.

BACKGROUND:Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) following penile reconstruction in transgender, nonbinary, and other gender expansive (T/GE) populations has not previously been described, despite known risk factors in the population. Following T/GE penile reconstruction, care providers may underdiagnose STI without anatomically appropriate guidelines. METHODS:A detailed anonymous online survey of experiences of T/GE penile reconstruction patients was constructed with community input. Respondents were recruited from online support groups. RESULTS:128 T/GE people with experience of penile reconstruction responded to an anonymous survey posted in online support groups January to May 2020. Seven respondents (5.5%) self-reported one or more of the listed STIs at any point after penile reconstruction. All respondents with neourethras were diagnosed with localized STIs in nonurethral (extrapenile) locations only, and lack of vaginectomy was correlated with STI (p = 0.002). STIs were correlated with reporting sex with cisgender men (p = 0.001), transgender men (p = 0.009), and transgender women (p = 0.012). Of healthcare access variables, only receiving healthcare at a Community Health Center was correlated with STI history (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory survey indicates STI occurs after penile reconstruction in T/GE patients. Clinical confirmation is needed to identify specific risk factors and relative susceptibility of post-reconstruction anatomy to STIs. Given no previous surveillance recommendations for this population and the correlation of healthcare provider location with STI prevalence, underdiagnoses are likely. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we describe a urogenital screening algorithm following gender affirming penile reconstruction.

BACKGROUND:Following gender-affirming penile inversion vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty, patients may seek vulvar revision procedures for a variety of common aesthetic and functional concerns. These indications for revision and accompanying techniques are not well-described in the literature. METHODS:Patients who underwent vulvar revision surgery at the authors' institution were identified, and patient demographics, surgical indications, operative details, and complications were described. Common complaints requiring external genital revision were sorted into four categories: clitoral, labial, introital, and urethral. RESULTS:Thirty-five patients with a history of vaginoplasty underwent vulvar revision between May of 2017 and December of 2019. The mean age at surgical correction was 38.9 years. Ten patients (28.6 percent) had undergone prior secondary procedures (range, 1 to 3). Mean follow-up after revision surgery was 10.7 ± 8.7 months (range, 0 to 30.6 months). The majority of patients underwent concurrent revisions in multiple "categories". Labial aesthetic concerns were most common (n = 27, 77.1 percent), followed by clitoral (n = 20, 57.1 percent), urologic (n = 17, 48.6 percent), and introital complaints (n = 12, 34.3 percent). Twelve patients (34.3 percent) had canal stenosis requiring concurrent robot-assisted canal revision with peritoneal flaps. Complications included labial abscess (n = 1) and deep vein thrombosis (n = 1). Three patients (8.6 percent) underwent subsequent external genital revisions. Management approaches and surgical techniques for each of these common revision categories are provided. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As more individuals seek vaginoplasty and vulvoplasty, surgeons must be prepared to address a range of common aesthetic and functional complaints requiring vulvar revision. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, IV.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the authors' experience diagnosing and managing intra-abdominal complications following robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty. The peritoneal flap vaginoplasty is a technique used to achieve consistent vaginal depth regardless of available natal tissue. Intra-abdominal complications following robotic peritoneal flap creation are rare but prompt diagnosis and management is critical to preventing patient harm. Given the infancy of the technique there is limited data on associated complications and their management. METHODS:Retrospective chart review identified patients undergoing robotically assisted peritoneal flap vaginoplasty by the senior authors between 2017 and 2020 who subsequently developed intra-abdominal complications requiring readmission and/or return to the operating room. Patient charts were analyzed for preoperative demographics, medical comorbidities, intraoperative details, postoperative complication presentation, diagnosis, management, and long-term outcomes. RESULTS:Out of 274 patients undergoing peritoneal flap vaginoplasty during the study period, six patients were identified who developed intra-abdominal complications (2.2%). One patient developed a postoperative hematoma requiring return to the operating room for diagnostic laparoscopy and hematoma evacuation. Two patients developed intraabdominal abscesses requiring diagnostic laparoscopy and abscess drainage. One patient developed recurrent episodes of small bowel obstructions that resolved with bowel rest. Two patients developed incarcerated internal hernias requiring diagnostic laparoscopy and internal hernia reduction. In one case, the hernia occurred at the peritoneal flap closure site, and in the other case the hernia occurred at the peritoneal flap donor site. CONCLUSIONS:Intra-abdominal complications following robot assisted peritoneal flap vaginoplasty are rare.  In addition to hematoma and abscess, small bowel incarceration and internal hernias are potential complications of peritoneal flap vaginoplasty that require prompt attention.

Increased access to care and insurance coverage has led to an increase in gender-affirming surgeries performed in the United States. Gender-affirming phalloplasty has a variety of donor sites and surgical techniques including both pedicled and free flaps. Although surgical techniques and patient outcomes are well-described, no reports in the literature specifically discuss postoperative management, which plays a crucial role in the success of these operations. Here, we present a postoperative protocol based on our institution's experience with gender-affirming phalloplasty with the hope it will serve as a standardized, reproducible reference for centers looking to offer these procedures.

BACKGROUND:Many patients have goals related to sexual health when seeking gender-affirming vaginoplasty, and previous investigations have only studied the ability to orgasm at cross-sectional timepoints. AIM/OBJECTIVE:Our aim is to quantify the time to orgasm postoperative gender-affirming vaginoplasty and describe potential correlative factors, including preoperative orgasm, to improve preoperative counseling. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was utilized to extract factors thought to influence pre and postoperative orgasm in patients undergoing robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty. Mean days to orgasm plus one standard deviation above that mean was used to define the time at which patients would be considered anorgasmic. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:Orgasm was documented as a categorical variable on the basis of surgeon interviews during pre and postoperative appointments while time to orgasm was measured as days from surgery to first date documented as orgasmic in the medical record. RESULTS:A total of 199 patients underwent surgery from September 2017 to August 2020. The median time to orgasm was 180 days. 178 patients had completed 1 year or greater of follow-up, and of these patients, 153 (86%) were orgasmic and 25 patients (14%) were not. Difficulty in preoperative orgasm was correlated only with older age (median age 45.9 years vs 31.7, P = .03). Postoperative orgasm was not significantly correlated with preoperative orgasm. The only factor related to postoperative orgasm was smoking history: 12 of 55 patients (21.8%) who had a positive smoking history and sufficient follow-up reported anorgasmia (P-value .046). Interventions for anorgasmic patients include testosterone replacement, pelvic floor physical therapy, and psychotherapy. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Preoperative difficulty with orgasm improves with gender-affirming robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty, while smoking had a negative impact on postoperative orgasm recovery despite negative cotinine test prior to surgery. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS/UNASSIGNED:This investigation is the first effort to determine a timeline for the return of orgasmic function after gender-affirming vaginoplasty. It is limited by retrospective review methodology and lack of long-term follow-up. The association of smoking with postoperative orgasm despite universal nicotine cessation prior to surgery may indicate prolonged smoking cessation improves orgasmic outcomes or that underlying, unmeasured exposures correlated with smoking may be the factor inhibiting recovery of orgasm. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The majority of patients were orgasmic at their 6-month follow-up appointments, however, patients continued to become newly orgasmic in appreciable numbers more than 1 year after surgery.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Gender-affirming mastectomy has become one of the most frequently performed procedures for transgender and nonbinary patients. Although there are a variety of potential surgical approaches available, the impact of technique on outcomes remains unclear. Here we present our experience performing periareolar and double incision mastectomies, with a focus on comparing patient demographics, preoperative risk factors, and surgical outcomes and complication rates between techniques. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective review identified patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy by the senior author between 2017 and 2020. Patients were stratified according to surgical technique, with demographics and postoperative outcomes compared between groups. Results/UNASSIGNED:= 0.84) based on technique. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Our results demonstrate no difference in the rates of postoperative complications or revision procedures based on surgical technique. These results also suggest that with an experienced surgeon and proper patient selection, both techniques of gender-affirming mastectomy can be performed safely and with comparable outcomes.