- Journal List
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
- v.11(5); 2023 May
- PMC10226616
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023 May; 11(5): e5033.
Published online 2023 May 30. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000005033
PMCID: PMC10226616
PMID: 37255762
Devin Coon, MD, MSE,
* Shane D. Morrison, MD, MS,†‡ Martin P. Morris, MD, MBE,§ Patrick Keller, MD,* Rachel Bluebond-Langner, MD,¶ Marci Bowers, MD,‖** Pierre Brassard, MD, FRCSC,†† Marlon E. Buncamper, MD, PhD,‡ Daniel Dugi, III, MD, FACS,‡‡ Cecile Ferrando, MD, MPH,§§ Katherine M. Gast, MD,¶¶ Christine McGinn, DO,‖‖ Toby Meltzer, MD,*** Stan Monstrey, MD, PhD,‡ Müjde Özer, MD,††† Melissa Poh, MD,‡‡‡ Thomas Satterwhite, MD,§§§ Jess Ting, MD,** Lee Zhao, MD,¶¶¶ William M. Kuzon, MD, PhD,† and Loren Schechter, MD‖‖‖
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
- Supplementary Materials
Background:
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:
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:
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 vagin*l canal/apex creation, creation of the cl*toral hood and inner labia minora, elevation of the neocl*toral 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:
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.
Takeaways
Question: What are the most common techniques for penile inversion vaginoplasty?
Findings: Across 17 western centers, there is significant consistency in practices across some aspects of vaginoplasty. Differences exist in use of extragenital tissue for vagin*l canal/apex creation, creation of the cl*toral hood and inner labia minora, elevation of the neocl*toral neurovascular bundle, and perioperative hormone management.
Meaning: This article provides a succinct summary of common practices at different centers and will be useful for guiding future research questions.
INTRODUCTION
Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) aims to align an individual’s anatomy with their gender identity. Although not all transgender and gender diverse people pursue GAS, for those who need it there can be alleviation or reduction of gender dysphoria, substantial improvement in quality-of-life, and reduced negative health outcomes.1 The number of GAS procedures being performed around the world continues to rise.2–4 With more surgeons gaining experience in GAS combined with innovation in the field, it is important that techniques and approaches are studied to identify areas of consensus and areas in need of improvement.
The goals of vaginoplasty are to create an aesthetic and functional vulva and vagin*l canal that can allow for penetrative intercourse, a sensate cl*tor*s, and urine stream that is directed downward.5 For creation of the vulva and vagin*l canal, there are a variety of techniques, including penile inversion with penoscrotal flaps and skin grafts, extragenital skin grafts, peritoneal flaps and grafts, and intestine.6–10 Although specific indications for these techniques have been proposed, there is still variability regarding their use.10 Moreover, controversies regarding perioperative hormone management, hair removal, dilation regimens, and general postoperative management persist.11–14
Recognizing areas of agreement and divergence is important for improving clinical consistency and identifying and prioritizing topics for research and further study. We conducted a large, cross-sectional survey of high-volume vaginoplasty surgeons predominantly in North America and Europe to provide “averages” for benchmark comparison and to guide further research and innovation.
METHODS
Because no patient data were involved, this study does not require institutional review board approval. Based on the consensus of three senior surgeons (W.M.K., L.S., and D.C.), 17 high-volume surgeons performing vaginoplasty for transgender and gender diverse patients were identified. A high-volume surgeon was considered someone who has been performing gender-affirming vaginoplasty for at least 3 years with at least 40 cases annually. (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which shows the consensus table, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C581.) (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 2, which shows surgeon demographics, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C582.) An email invitation for study participation was sent to each surgeon for a total of two attempts. Those who agreed to participate in the study were invited for a semistructured interview over the phone or in-person with one of the people conducting the study (W.M.K., D.C., or S.D.M.). Interviews were conducted between January 2020 and April 2021.
Instrument Development
Questions were developed by three senior surgeons (L.S., W.M.K. and D.C.) around techniques and management during vaginoplasty. A total of fifty questions were asked in an open-ended manner to allow for discussion amongst the interviewer and interviewee. Responses were recorded as accurately as possible by the interviewer. (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 1,http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C581.)
Analysis
Data were coded into appropriate categories, and any discrepancies were clarified.
Inferential Statistics
Analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2020). Pearson correlations for 43 variables (ie, 903 pairwise correlations) were calculated using pairwise complete observations and tested via t tests with false discovery rate control implemented in package psych.15–17 The false discovery rate was set to 0.05.
KEY DECISIONS AND AREAS OF PRACTICE VARIATION
Vaginoplasty Technique
While penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) is the most common vaginoplasty technique, technical differences are common between surgeons.6,18 In addition, indications for alternative vaginoplasty procedures remain in debate, and technical refinements are routinely described.10
Intestinal Vaginoplasty
Traditionally, the primary alternative to PIV was intestinal vaginoplasty. Perceived benefits may include greater depth, less need for postoperative dilation, and inherent lubrication from mucus secretion. The drawbacks include the need for a bowel anastomosis, excess secretion/mucus, odor, prolapse, diversion colitis, and the need for gastrointestinal cancer screening in the neovagin*l segment.9,19 Although intestinal vaginoplasty may be performed in a minimally invasive fashion (ie, either robotic or laparoscopic harvest), there has been a strong trend away from the intestinal vaginoplasty as a primary procedure. None of the surgeons involved offer intestinal vaginoplasty for routine, primary vaginoplasties. A few consider it an option for revision vaginoplasty (ie, after rectovagin*l fistula or complete stenosis of the neovagin* requiring full cavity lining) or in individuals who have undergone pubertal blockade and have insufficient penoscrotal tissue. (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 3, which shows types of vaginoplasty other than PIV, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C583.)
Peritoneal Vaginoplasty
Initially described for vagin*l agenesis, the concept of using peritoneum for vagin*l lining dates back more than 50 years to Davydov. Within the past 5 years, the use of peritoneum for transgender vaginoplasty has been reported.7,20 Although some centers have advocated the use of peritoneum as a free graft, concerns regarding contracture and graft take have led other centers to use flaps. Harvested robotically or laparoscopically, this involves two advanced peritoneal flaps that allow for the construction of the vagin*l apex, one anteriorly-based (harvested off of the bladder) and the other posteriorly-based (harvested off of the rectum). Unlike cases of vagin*l agenesis in cisgender women, the distal vagin* and introitus are still created with penile or scrotal skin grafts. Potential advantages of this technique include greater attainable depth and a safer dissection plane in revision cases. Potential disadvantages include increased operative time, entrance into the abdominal cavity and cost and availability associated with the use of the robot. In addition, long-term data regarding the behavior of peritoneum in the vagin*l canal, and its comparison with an epithelial-lined vagin* (ie, skin grafts) is not available. In this study, only one center used peritoneal flap vaginoplasty and one center used peritoneal grafts in the great majority of cases. More centers use peritoneal tissue in select or revision cases. (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 3,http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C583.) (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 4, which shows technique modification for penoscrotal hypoplasia, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C584.)
Minimal-depth Vaginoplasty
In select cases, a vaginoplasty is performed without the creation of a vagin*l canal. This technique may be referred to by a variety of terms, including vulvoplasty, minimal-depth vaginoplasty (MDV), or zero-depth/shallow-depth vaginoplasty. Advantages of an MDV include shorter surgery, faster recovery, obviation of vagin*l dilation, elimination of hair epilation and much-reduced risk of rectal injury or fistula. The drawback is the lack of a vagin*l canal.21 Surgeons typically counsel their patients that the decision for MDV is largely irreversible. In our study, a surgeon’s primary indications for MDV include patient request (primarily, unwillingness to dilate/lack of interest in a vagin*l canal) and co-morbid medical and surgical risk conditions (history of prostatectomy and/or radiation). Some surgeons outside this study have indicated that MDV comprises over 20% of their vaginoplasty practice. However, all of the surgeons participating in this study perform MDV less than 15% of the time. (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 3,http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C583.) (See table, Supplemental Digital Content 5, which shows indications for minimal-depth vaginoplasty, http://links.lww.com/PRSGO/C585.)
Perioperative Management
Pre- and postoperative preparation and management is critical in achieving a successful result. Before surgery, most surgeons recommend epilation from the penile shaft and scrotal skin (source of skin graft for construction of the vagin*l canal; Table Table1).1). While hair can be removed during surgery (ie, “scraping,” cautery, follicle removal), prior epilation reduces the risk of intravagin*l hair growth. The presence of hair within the vagin*l canal increases the risk of sebaceous discharge and odor, may form retained bezoars, and is difficult to address postoperatively. It is likely that in countries or practice settings where epilation is a covered insurance benefit, surgeons are able to be more stringent on this requirement.
Table 1.
Preoperative Management
| Consideration | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Hair removal | |
| Preoperative recommended | 16 (94.1%) |
| Not compulsory preoperatively* | 9 (56.2%) |
| Intraoperative | 0 (0%) |
| None | 1 (5.9%) |
| Type of hair removal | |
| Electrolysis | 5 (29.4%) |
| Laser | 3 (17.6%) |
| Either | 9 (52.9%) |
| Estrogen management† | |
| Continue full dose‡ | 7 (38.9%) |
| Reduce dose§ | 4 (22.2%) |
| Stop | 7 (38.9%) |
| 2 wk¶ | 4 (57.1%) |
| 3 wk¶ | 2 (28.6%) |
| 4 wk¶ | 1 (14.3%) |
| BMI cutoff | |
| 30 | 2 (11.8%) |
| 32 | 1 (5.9%) |
| 35 | 5 (29.4%) |
| 40 | 4 (23.5%) |
| None/unknown | 5 (29.4%) |
Open in a separate window
*Of the 16 who recommend hair removal preoperatively.
†One respondent chose continue and partial reduction depending on estrogen dose.
‡One respondent holds estrogen the day of surgery.
§One respondent reduces to 3 mg/day if dose is more than 6 mg/day; one respondent reduces it to 1 mg/day 30 days before surgery.
The impact of obesity on surgical outcomes remains controversial. Both expert opinion and the limited available literature suggest that vaginoplasty on obese patients does not pose tremendous risk of severe morbidity, but wound complications increase substantially, and the result may require revisions to achieve a natural appearance. Beyond the intraoperative period, factors such as dilation can also made more difficult as BMI progressively increases. Most centers thus have a BMI or weight cutoff, with the median BMI being around 35.
Preoperative hormone cessation or reduction is practiced by most surgeons, but the number of surgeons who continue full-dose estrogen through vaginoplasty has grown (Table (Table1).1). Although there is no consensus as to the duration of hormone cessation, estradiol therapy may be a risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) in what is often classified as a high-risk procedure by most VTE stratification methods (ie, lengthy pelvic surgery with prolonged bedrest). Although the available data suggest that the risk of VTE is low, these are generally studies that are underpowered and not generalizable.12,13,22,23 In addition, centers that continue hormone therapy throughout the pre- and postoperative period often utilize chemoprophylaxis as part of their VTE prophylaxis regimen or rapid postoperative ambulation. The risks of postoperative bleeding related to chemoprophylaxis are not considered in many of these studies. Further research is needed to better quantify what, if any, are the increased risks of VTE associated with continued hormone therapy.
In recent years, routine preoperative pelvic physical therapy has been incorporated into some surgical programs. Other programs utilize pelvic physical therapy when patients experience difficulty with postoperative dilation. The benefits of pelvic physical therapy may include both physical and psychological assistance with pelvic relaxation to facilitate postoperative vagin*l dilation (comfort with inserting the vagin*l dilator).24
Canal Dissection Method/Technique
Due to risk of rectal and/or urethral injury, dissection of the vagin*l canal represents the highest risk step of the procedure. The dissection proceeds with release of the central tendon until the prostate is reached. At this point, Denonvillier (retroprostatic) fascia (and the prostate capsule) is identified and incised. After release of this fascial layer, blunt dissection is performed until the peritoneal reflection is reached. The peritoneal reflection represents the maximum depth that can be achieved without violating the peritoneum.
There is significant variation in how surgeons create the neovagin*l space. Some surgeons use a foley catheter to define the membranous and prostatic urethra. This technique does not entail mobilization of the prostate. Other surgeons mobilize the prostate into the surgical field with the use of either a urethral sound or Lowsley retractor. Once the dissection has progressed beyond the prostate, the majority of surgeons responded that the neovagin*l plane is developed bluntly (including the use of retractors, sponge sticks, or digital pressure; Table Table22).
Table 2.
PIV Technique Modifications
| Technique Modification | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Dissection beyond prostatic capsule* | |
| Blunt | 14 (82.4%) |
| Speculum/retractor | 6 (35.3%) |
| Dilator | 2 (11.8%) |
| Sharp | 1 (5.9%) |
| Levator ani sidewall release | |
| Yes | 14 (82.4%) |
| Resection of corpora cavernosum | |
| At crus and imbricate in midline | 10 (58.8%) |
| To bony origin | 7 (41.2%) |
| Resection of corpora spongiosum | |
| Partial | 2 (11.8%) |
| Aggressive | 14 (82.4%) |
| Imbricate only | 1 (5.9%) |
| Plane of cl*toral neurovascular bundle elevation | |
| Supratunical | 5 (29.4%) |
| Subtunical | 12 (70.6%) |
| Tissue used to create inner labia minora† | |
| Prepuce | 13 (76.5%) |
| Urethra mucosa | 6 (35.3%) |
| Staged with grafts | 1 (5.9%) |
| Penile skin use‡ | |
| vagin*l canal | 8 (47.1%) |
| External vestibule | 15 (88.2%) |
| vagin*l canal fixation (excluding packing) | |
| Suture fixation | 1 (5.9%) |
| Fibrin glue | 2 (11.8%) |
| Packing only | 14 (82.4%) |
| Rectal injury identification§ | |
| Observation only | 7 (41.2%) |
| Manual exam | 9 (52.9%) |
| Dyed enema | 3 (17.6%) |
| Rectal insufflation with saline in cavity | 1 (5.9%) |
Open in a separate window
*Four respondents mentioned more than one technique.
†Three respondents use both prepuce and urethral tissue.
‡Six respondents mentioned both.
§Three respondents mentioned more than one technique.
Once the neovagin* has been created in the midline, a varying degree of lateral release of the pelvic musculature/diaphragm is performed. The levator ani muscles constitute the initial dissection of the lateral borders of the neovagin*l canal. Release of these muscles allows for widening of the neovagin*l canal, with the ultimate limit being the bony ischium. There is wide variation in how much muscle release is performed (Table (Table1).1). This ranges from no release to multiple releasing incisions to a particular endpoint (eg, accommodation of a large dilator). Levator muscle release can be associated with significant hemorrhage, which can be challenging to control (although packing and direct pressure are adequate in most cases). The variation in sidewall release is underscored by the range of surgeon responses (Table (Table2).2). Opinion differs as to whether canal width/levator contracture contributes to dilation difficulty, and subsequent vagin*l stenosis. Some surgeons believe that muscle release is mandatory, whereas others believe that epithelial lining problems and skin graft contracture are the driving causes of vagin*l stenosis (Table (Table22).
Fixation of the vagin*l apex, including sacrospinous fixation, has been reported so as to reduce the risk of vagin*l prolapse. Few of the participating surgeons reported using any fixation method such as sacrospinous fixation or fibrin glue. vagin*l prolapse seems to be an uncommon event and, when it occurs, may be the manifestation of graft nonadherence rather than avulsion from inadequate fixation.
Dissection of the Glans Penis and Construction of the cl*tor*s (Neurovascular Bundle Elevation)
A portion of the dorsal glans penis is raised on the dorsal penile neurovascular bundle (NVB) to form a neocl*tor*s. In the majority of cases, this approach offers an aesthetic cl*tor*s with sensory and org*smic function.5 This method represents a major technical advance over initial attempts at cl*toral reconstruction which used free cl*toral grafts or ventrally-pedicled urethral flaps.
Currently, there are two technical variations in neurovascular flap harvest. The method of dissection represents one of the characteristic signatures of a particular surgeon’s vaginoplasty “style.” The first technique, “Buck’s fascial elevation” or “supratunical elevation,” involves direct elevation of the NVB with Buck’s fascia; the tunica albuginea overlying the cavernous bodies remains intact. This method involves careful dissection directly on the neurovascular structures, eventually yielding a thin pedicle. Nearly the entirety of the corpora cavernosa can then be resected. The neocl*tor*s is inset by folding the pedicle on itself beneath the mons pubis.
The alternate technique, “tunica elevation” or “subtunical elevation,” entails an incision through the tunica. This extends the dissection into the corporal bodies on either side, yielding a pedicle that is 2–4 cm wide. This pedicle contains both tunical and corporal tissue on its ventral surface. At the level of the corporal crus, the tunica is typically incised so as to separate the NVB from the corpora. Management of the corporal bodies may include either complete resection or retention of a remnant of the cavernosal cylinders.
Perceived advantages to the “tunica” technique include (1) less risk of injury to the NVB as the tunica provides a protective barrier, and (2) speed, as the dissection plane is far less demanding. Perceived disadvantages include (1) undesirable bulk, either from the residual corpora or tunica on the underside of the pedicle (this may manifest as either mons or vulvar vestibule fullness), and (2) greater blood loss while entering and ligating the corporal bodies (followed by potential ongoing bleeding both intraoperatively and as postoperative hematoma). Interestingly, though most surgeons have tried both methods, the majority of surgeons use the subtunical method (Table (Table2).2). It is widely agreed that additional data are needed to address which technique offers advantages in sensory and aesthetic outcomes. The accompanying video illustrates the difference in supratunical and subtunical NVB elevation (See Video [online], which demonstrates variations in technique for harvest of neocl*toral flap. It demonstrates supra- versus subtunical dissection of the neocl*toral pedicle).
Video 1.
Download video file.(22M, mp4)
This video demonstrates supra- versus sub-tunical dissection of the neo-cl*toral pedicle.
cl*toral Hood and Inner Labia Minora Creation
cl*toral hood creation is generally derived from either the prepuce/distal penile skin or the urethral mucosa. Both of these techniques have been described in the literature, and it seems the majority of surgeons favor use of the prepuce skin (Table (Table33).8,25 Tension on the posterior fourchette is often used in addition to these tissues to enhance fold projection. Revision of the labia minora can be difficult to address.26,27
Table 3.
Postoperative Management
| Consideration | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Timing to restart estrogen | |
| N/A | 6 (35.3%) |
| POD 1* | 1 (5.9%) |
| POD 2 | 1 (5.9%) |
| POD 3 | 1 (5.9%) |
| POD 5 | 1 (5.9%) |
| POD 7–10 | 5 (29.4%) |
| POD 11–20 | 2 (11.8%) |
| Drain use | |
| Yes | 15 (88.2%) |
| Drain placement† | |
| Groin | 1 (5.9%) |
| Labia | 10 (58.9%) |
| Suprapubic | 6 (35.3%) |
| Gluteal | 2 (11.8%) |
| Number of drains | |
| One JP/Blake | 4 (23.5%) |
| Two JP/Blakes | 7 (41.2%) |
| Two Penrose | 3 (17.6%) |
| Packing‡ | |
| Yes | 16 (94.1%) |
| Prosthetic | 2 (11.8%) |
| Packing sewn in place | 7 (41.2%) |
| Length of stay | |
| Overnight | 1 (5.9%) |
| POD 2–4 | 5 (29.4%) |
| POD 5 | 4 (23.5%) |
| POD 6–9 | 7 (41.2%) |
| Use of chemoprophylaxis for VTE | |
| Yes | 15 (88.2%) |
| None/unknown | 2 (11.8%) |
| Length of chemoprophylaxis§ | |
| Day of surgery only | 3 (27.7%) |
| POD 1 | 2 (18.2%) |
| POD 7 | 1 (9.1%) |
| While inpatient | 5 (45.5%) |
| Packing removal timing | |
| POD 5–6 | 14 (82.4%) |
| POD 7–9 | 3 (17.6%) |
| Foley removal timing | |
| POD 5–6 | 12 (70.6%) |
| POD 7–10 | 5 (29.4%) |
| Foley kept in longer than packing | 7 (41.2%) |
| Dilation initiation timing | |
| POD 5–6 | 9 (52.9%) |
| POD 7–10 | 6 (35.3%) |
| POD 11–14 | 2 (11.8%) |
| Dilator size to start¶ | |
| Smallest | 7 (41.2%) |
| Largest that will fit | 10 (58.8%) |
| Scheduled upsizing of dilator | 7 (41.2%) |
| vagin*l rinses | |
| Yes | 13 (76.5%) |
Open in a separate window
*One respondent holds estrogen on the day of surgery only.
†Five respondents put drains in multiple anatomic positions.
‡One respondent sometimes uses packing and other times a prosthetic.
§Percentage is based on the 14 respondents who use chemoprophylaxis.
¶One respondent said it depends on the outcome with bolster takedown.
Postoperative Management
Vaginoplasty is one of the more elaborate postoperative management paradigms within surgery; both early- and lifelong care is required. In general, surgeons place either vagin*l packing or stents within the vagin* to promote graft/flap adherence. The duration of packing and stent placement varies, but is generally between 5 and 6 days postoperatively. Similarly, the duration of catheterization varies between centers and surgeons. Some surgeons maintain the catheter after packing removal due to risk of urinary retention. Most surgeons use drains postoperatively, whether within the neovagin* or vulva. There is no consistency in terms of duration of VTE prophylaxis, but most surgeons use it. Current regimens include both chemo- and mechanical prophylaxis, as well as various ambulation/bedrest regimens. Dilation of the neovagin* is required to maintain vagin*l dimensions. Dilation protocols vary between centers, with some surgeons initiating dilation immediately after packing/stent removal and others waiting 10–14 days after surgery. As the epithelial-lined vagin* is not self-cleansing, most surgeons recommend an intravagin*l washing (ie, douching) protocol to help remove lubrication and desquamated skin (Table (Table33).
The heterogeneity of vaginoplasty practices is epitomized by pathway length of stay, which ranges from overnight observation to 9-day inpatient stay. For each practice, this is likely guided by other decisions (eg, many surgeons keep patients on bed rest until the packing is removed, necessitating a certain length of stay). However, length of stay has become an increasingly important and tracked metric. This area warrants further investigation and consensus development of enhanced recovery (ERAS) pathways, which have been shown to decrease narcotic requirements and improve outcomes in other procedures.
Complications and Management
Most complications after vaginoplasty entail wound disruptions, which may be treated on an outpatient basis with local care.8,11 Fortunately, major complications, the most dreaded of which is rectovagin*l fistula (RVF), are not common. Management of rectal injury and/or subsequent rectovagin*l fistula varies.28 This may include low residue diets, delay in dilation, and fecal diversion by colostomy (Table (Table4).4). There is variation between surgeons regarding their threshold for deciding to attempt salvage of the fistulized vagin*l canal versus cessation of dilation with a planned secondary vaginoplasty after complete healing of the fistula and canal closure.
Table 4.
Intraoperative and Postoperative Complication Management
| Management Consideration | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Intraoperative rectal injury aside from direct repair* | |
| No change in operative course | 3 (17.6%) |
| Diet change | 10 (58.9%) |
| Colorectal consult | 1 (5.9%) |
| Fecal diversion | 1 (5.9%) |
| Abort procedure with vulvoplasty only | 1 (5.9%) |
| Muscle flap | 5 (29.4%) |
| Delay dilation | 5 (29.4%) |
| Postoperative orchialgia | |
| Yes | 3 (17.6%) |
| Tender stumps only | 2 (11.8%) |
| Management of rectovagin*l fistula† | |
| Fecal diversion | 14 (82.4%) |
| Keep dilating | 7 (41.2%) |
| Stop dilating | 1 (5.9%) |
| Direct repair | 5 (29.4%) |
| Muscle flap | 2 (11.8%) |
| Low residue diet | 2 (11.8%) |
| Etiology of vagin*l stenosis‡ | |
| Inadequate dilation | 10 (58.9%) |
| Delayed wound healing/graft loss | 10 (58.9%) |
| Wrong plane of prerectal dissection | 1 (5.9%) |
| Introital scar contracture | 2 (11.8%) |
| Pelvic sidewall muscle contracture | 6 (35.3%) |
| Symptomatic swelling of corpora cavernosum | |
| Yes | 4 (23.5%) |
| Symptomatic swelling of corpora spongiosum | |
| Yes | 16 (94.1%) |
Open in a separate window
*Ten respondents indicated multiple responses.
†Seven respondents indicated multiple responses.
‡Nine respondents indicated multiple responses.
Other significant complications include stenosis of the vagin*l canal. This may result from inadequate canal dissection, infection, graft/flap loss, and/or failure to dilate. Introital stenosis can also occur as an isolated entity, but appears mostly related to cases with young patients or those who have been puberty-blocked or have underdeveloped genitalia. More minor complications include spraying of urine and engorgement of the vagin*l introitus from retained erectile tissue, which has been seen by the vast majority of surgeons in this study. Aggressive resection of the corpora spongiosum from the urethral bulb is commonly performed followed by imbrication of the edges to minimize blood loss (Table (Table4).4). In contrast, completeness of cavernosa resection seem less important because only one surgeon had ever seen issues attributable to inadequate resection of the corpora cavernosa, presumably because their erectile capacity is more easily disrupted by the procedure.
LIMITATIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Further research into various aspects of vaginoplasty are imperative as surgeons continue to improve and innovate. Areas of priority for research include patient-reported outcomes, the appropriate management of hormones in the perioperative period, and early and lifelong vagin*l maintenance regimens, including cleaning and dilation.29,30
The thresholds chosen for inclusion on surgeon experience were based on expert opinion to identify surgeons devoting a significant portion of their practice to vaginoplasty, given that only a limited number of interviews could be conducted. Other limitations include a geographic focus on North America and Europe; future studies should include non-Western vaginoplasty centers to examine any potential practice differences.
Comparative, hypothesis-driven research is needed to address areas of surgical divergence. We identify areas where significant disagreement remains among experts, which should be top priorities for new research projects. Examples include the benefits and drawbacks of peritoneal tissue as compared with traditional skin epithelium, outcome differences across methods of cl*toral NVB elevation, and whether vagin*l canal contraction and stenosis are driven more by levator muscle function or fibroblast-driven skin graft contraction. To achieve the number of patients to adequately power these studies, multi-institutional and prospective studies will be needed.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of vaginoplasty procedures performed annually continues to grow rapidly. As one of the most complex procedures in reconstructive surgery, there are a broad variety of key decisions to be made pre-, intra- and postoperatively. This study conducts an in-depth comparison of the perioperative practices of a select number of high-volume centers across the world. We have identified uniformity of practice in many subjects, yet heterogeneity in others (eg, NVB dissection). Comparative outcomes research is needed to inform best practices in these areas. Future research projects should focus on these high-impact questions.
DISCLOSURE
The authors have no financial intersts to declare in relation to the content of this article.
Supplementary Material
Click here to view.(263K, pdf)
Click here to view.(18K, pdf)
Click here to view.(17K, pdf)
Click here to view.(12K, pdf)
Click here to view.(12K, pdf)
Footnotes
Published online 30 May 2023.
Disclosure statements are at the end of this article, following the correspondence information.
Related Digital Media are available in the full-text version of the article on www.PRSGlobalOpen.com.
REFERENCES
1. Oles N, Darrach H, Landford W, et al.. Gender affirming surgery: a comprehensive, systematic review of all peer-reviewed literature and methods of assessing patient-centered outcomes (part 1: breast/chest, face, and voice).Ann Surg. 2020;275:e52–e66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. ASPS 2019 Statistics.2020. Available at https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2019.pdf
3. Shen JK, Seebacher NA, Morrison SD. global interest in gender affirmation surgery: a Google trends analysis.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:254e–256e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Canner JK, Harfouch O, Kodadek LM, et al.. Temporal trends in gender-affirming surgery among transgender patients in the United States.JAMA Surg. 2018;153:609–616. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Calotta NA, Kuzon W, Dellon AL, et al.. Sensibility, sensation, and nerve regeneration after reconstructive genital surgery: evolving concepts in neurobiology.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:995e–1003e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Buncamper ME, van der Sluis WB, van der Pas RSD, et al.. Surgical outcome after penile inversion vaginoplasty: a retrospective study of 475 transgender women.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:999–1007. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Jacoby A, Maliha S, Granieri MA, et al.. Robotic davydov peritoneal flap vaginoplasty for augmentation of vagin*l depth in feminizing vaginoplasty.J Urol. 2019;201:1171–1176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Massie JP, Morrison SD, Van Maasdam J, et al.. Predictors of patient satisfaction and postoperative complications in penile inversion vaginoplasty.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:911e–921e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Morrison SD, Satterwhite T, Grant DW, et al.. Long-term outcomes of rectosigmoid neocolporrhaphy in male-to-female gender reassignment surgery.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:386–394. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Salibian AA, Schechter LS, Kuzon WM, et al.. vagin*l canal reconstruction in penile inversion vaginoplasty with flaps, peritoneum, or skin grafts: where is the evidence?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:634e–643e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Gaither TW, Awad MA, Osterberg EC, et al.. Postoperative complications following primary penile inversion vaginoplasty among 330 male-to-female transgender patients.J Urol. 2018;199:760–765. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Kozato A, Fox GWC, Yong PC, et al.. No venous thromboembolism increase among transgender female patients remaining on estrogen for gender-affirming surgery.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106:e1586–e1590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Nolan IT, Haley C, Morrison SD, et al.. Estrogen continuation and venous thromboembolism in penile inversion vaginoplasty.J Sex Med. 2021;18:193–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Rochlin DH, Morrison SD, Kuzon WM, Jr. A call for consideration of gender identity in venous thromboembolism risk assessment.Ann Surg. 2020;274:e191–e192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing.J Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]
16. Revelle W. Psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. [computer program].Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University; 2021. R package version 2.1.9, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. [Google Scholar]
17. Wei T and Simko V. R package “Corrplot”: visualization of a correlation matrix [computer program]. Version 0.09. 2021.Available at https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot.
18. Buncamper ME, Honselaar JS, Bouman MB, et al.. Aesthetic and functional outcomes of neovaginoplasty using penile skin in male-to-female transsexuals.J Sex Med. 2015;12:1626–1634. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Bouman MB, van der Sluis WB, Buncamper ME, et al.. Primary total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty in transgender women with penoscrotal hypoplasia: a prospective cohort study of surgical outcomes and follow-up of 42 patients.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:614e–623e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Dy GW, Jun MS, Blasdel G, et al.. Outcomes of gender affirming peritoneal flap vaginoplasty using the Da Vinci single port versus Xi robotic systems.Eur Urol. 2021;79:676–683. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Jiang D, Witten J, Berli J, Dugi D, III. Does depth matter? Factors affecting choice of vulvoplasty over vaginoplasty as gender-affirming genital surgery for transgender women.J Sex Med. 2018;15:902–906. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Boskey ER, Taghinia AH, Ganor O. Association of surgical risk with exogenous hormone use in transgender patients: a systematic review.JAMA Surg. 2019;154:159–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Hontscharuk R, Alba B, Manno C, et al.. Perioperative transgender hormone management: avoiding venous thromboembolism and other complications.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147:1008–1017. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Jiang DD, Gallagher S, Burchill L, Berli J, Dugi D, III. Implementation of a pelvic floor physical therapy program for transgender women undergoing gender-affirming vaginoplasty.Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:1003–1011. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Opsomer D, Gast KM, Ramaut L, et al.. Creation of cl*toral hood and labia minora in penile inversion vaginoplasty in circumcised and uncircumcised transwomen.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:729e–733e. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Boas SR, Ascha M, Morrison SD, et al.. Outcomes and predictors of revision labiaplasty and cl*toroplasty after gender-affirming genital surgery.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:1451–1461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Patel V, Morrison SD, Gujural D, et al.. Labial fat grafting after penile inversion vaginoplasty.Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:NP55–NP64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. van der Sluis WB, Bouman MB, Buncamper ME, et al.. Clinical characteristics and management of neovagin*l fistulas after vaginoplasty in transgender women.Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:1118–1126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Klassen AF, Kaur M, Johnson N, et al.. International phase I study protocol to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for adolescents and adults receiving gender-affirming treatments (the GENDER-Q).BMJ Open. 2018;8:e025435e025435. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Andreasson M, Georgas K, Elander A, et al.. Patient reported outcome measures used in gender confirmation surgery – a systematic review.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1026–1039. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health
