Surgical and patient-reported outcomes following double incision and free nipple grafting for female to male gender affirmation: does obesity make a difference?

Body Mass Index and Complication Rates Among Patients Undergoing Gender-Affirming Surgeries: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database

PURPOSE

To determine the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and complication rates among patients undergoing gender-affirming surgeries (GAS).

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried from 2015 to 2021. Patients who underwent a GAS were identified using International Classification of Diseases Ninth (ICD-9) and Tenth (ICD-10) codes. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were organized within 6 GAS subgroups: masculinizing top, masculinizing bottom, feminizing top, feminizing bottom, head and neck, and voice procedures. BMI was classified as underweight, healthy weight, overweight, or obese classes I-III using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention ranges. Demographic data included sex, age, race, and ethnicity. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study sample, and hierarchical logistic regression was used to examine the association between GAS, BMI, and surgical complications.

RESULTS

Among the 6771 cases, the majority had a BMI categorized as healthy weight (33.5%) or overweight (30.5%). Smaller proportions had obesity class I (18.6%), class II (8.4%), or class III (6.2%); 1.9% were underweight. BMI was not a significant predictor of complications among those undergoing masculinizing and feminizing top surgeries or head and neck surgeries. Among participants undergoing masculinizing bottom surgery, those with class 1 obesity were 70% less likely to have surgical complications compared to those with a healthy weight. For those undergoing feminizing bottom surgeries, participants with class 1 obesity were 3.3 times more likely to have surgical complications compared to those with a healthy weight.

CONCLUSION

BMI is commonly used to determine GAS eligibility, yet its utility in predicting complications is uncertain. Healthcare providers should consider the patient's overall health status when assessing GAS eligibility rather than relying on BMI alone.

Nonbinary and Transgender Male Patient Preferences for Gender-Affirming Top Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify patient preferences and outcomes of chest masculinization surgery in patients identifying as nonbinary versus transgender (trans-) males.

METHODS

Patients who underwent chest masculinization (2003-2022) were included. Demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical approaches, complications, secondary procedures, and BODY-Q chest module survey responses were compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

Three hundred two patients were included. Thirteen percent identified as nonbinary and 87% as trans-male. The most common surgical approach in both groups was double incision with free nipple-areola graft (63% vs 71%, P = 0.33). Nonbinary patients more frequently opted for double incision without free nipple areola graft compared to trans-male patients (18% vs 2.7%, P < 0.001). Other unique surgical requests of nonbinary patients included nipple areola preservation and small breast mound preservation (5.2%) and balance between losing bulk and achieving a more androgynous appearance (5.3%). The survey response rate was 31% (93/302). Both groups reported improved quality of life postoperatively ( P = 0.16). Three nonbinary patients elected not to keep their nipple-areola complexes ( P = 0.005). Trans-male patients were more likely to report having a male chest as very important for their gender identity (82% vs 95%, P = 0.043). Nonbinary patients were less likely to prefer small nipples (82% vs 95%, P = 0.033) and 18% stated that they preferred no nipples (vs 2.7% trans-male patients, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonbinary patients have distinct surgical preferences regarding nipple-areola complexes. Chest masculinization planning can differ for this group of patients compared to their trans-male counterparts.

Understanding Public Perceptions of Nipple and Scar Characteristics After Chest Wall Masculinization Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical chest masculinization procedures, especially gender-affirming top surgery (GATS), are becoming increasingly prevalent in the USA. While a variety of surgical techniques have been established as both safe and effective, there is limited research examining ideal aesthetic nipple appearance and incision scar pattern. This study employs patient images to understand the public's perception on top surgery outcomes when adjusting for BMI ranges and Fitzpatrick skin types.

METHODS

Images from RealSelf modified via Adobe Photoshop depicted various scar types and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) sizes/positions. A Qualtrics survey was distributed utilizing Amazon Mechanical Turk. Statistical analysis was performed through JMP Pro 17 for ordinal and categorical values, with a p value less than or equal to 0.05 statistically significant.

RESULTS

A moderately sized and laterally placed NAC was preferred. A transverse scar that resembles the pectoral border between the level of the inframammary fold and pectoral insertion was deemed most masculine and aesthetic. Majority of results demonstrated that this is unaffected by Fitzpatrick skin types. Increased BMI images impacted public preferences, as a nipple placed farther from the transverse incision (p = 0.04) and a transverse scar position closer to the IMF was preferred in higher BMI patients.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of the most popular NAC and scar choices, as well as how these factors may differ when considering a Fitzpatrick skin type or BMI categorization was attained. This validates the importance of patient-centered approach when employing surgical techniques in GATS. Future studies intend to obtain reports from actual patients considering GATS.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable.

Association Between Body Mass Index and Clinical Outcomes of Gender-Affirming Masculinizing Chest Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Body mass index (BMI) is often used in surgical settings to determine patients' risk of complications. In the context of gender-affirming care, BMI requirements for surgery can limit access to necessary care for larger-bodied people. There is a critical need to understand the association between BMI and postoperative outcomes for this population.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted using the first 250 consecutive gender-affirming masculinizing chest reconstructions performed between 2017 and 2021 at a large academic medical institution. The relationships between BMI, preoperative factors, and common postsurgical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Average BMI at surgery was 27.5 ± 6.7 kg/m2. Increases in BMI were associated with longer drain stays, larger volume of tissue resected, higher likelihood of nipple grafts, and lower likelihood of periareolar surgery (all P < 0.0001). Simple logistic regression revealed that BMI increases were significantly related to the likelihood of experiencing dog ears in the intermediate term (P = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for common covariates (age, ethnicity, smoking status, asthma, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular conditions, and mental health disorders) did not reveal any significant relationships between BMI and the likelihood of experiencing complications at any study point.

CONCLUSIONS

Masculinizing chest reconstruction is safe and satisfactory for young adult patients across the range of BMI, with significant differences in outcomes found only for esthetic complications (i.e., dog ears). Surgeons should inform patients with higher BMIs about what outcomes to expect but higher BMI should not preclude surgery access.

Body Contouring as Gender-Affirming Surgery in Transgender Patients: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

Background: There is an increasing demand for body contouring and gender-affirming surgeries, and so is the need to compare outcomes between techniques. Gender dysphoria is a discrepancy between gender identity and the sex assigned at birth. One way to address this is to perform procedures to enable patients to look according to their desired gender identity. Gaps in knowledge regarding the best approaches and which surgical techniques yield the most patient satisfaction remain. This article summarizes up-to-date studies, including upper and lower body contouring procedures. Methods: A systematic review was performed using terms related to body contouring in gender-affirming surgery for transgender patients. All articles included surgical and patient-reported outcomes following either chest or lower body contouring procedures. Results: 15 studies, including trans male chest wall contouring, trans female breast augmentation, and lower body contouring, with 1811 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The double incision (DI) techniques consistently resected more tissue and had better BODY Q scores than non-overweight patients. Bleeding was increased in periareolar, semicircular, and obese patients with DI techniques. Nipple depigmentation and sensation loss were more common with double-incision-free nipple graft techniques (DIFNG). Lower body contouring patients had average implant sizes bigger than 200 mL and reported 2 gluteal implant displacements, 1 exposure, and one rupture. Eight percent of patients who underwent large-volume fat grafting reported dissatisfaction due to fat reabsorption. Conclusions: The debate between the double incision and periareolar techniques continues. Variations of the DIFNG technique continue to be the most common approach; however, nipple depigmentation and loss of sensation are also more common with it. Regarding increased bleeding with periareolar techniques, there is still no evidence that hormonal therapy may be playing a role in it. For lower-body trans female contouring, implants could help with the longevity of contouring results in patients needing large-volume fat grafting. There is an increasing evaluation of gender-affirming body contouring patient-reported outcomes; however, there is still a need for a validated way to report satisfaction scores in lower body contouring. Validated surveys could help identify surgical candidates based on satisfaction patterns, specifically for transgender and non-binary patients.

Defining sexual dimorphism in masculinizing chest surgery using 3-dimensional imaging

There is no consensus on the ideal scar location and inframammary fold (IMF) placement in the gender-affirming double-incision mastectomy technique. Recent advances in imaging technology have facilitated noninvasive investigations into anatomic variability, in many cases, obviating the traditional approach of cadaveric dissection to answer anatomic questions. A better understanding of chest wall sexual dimorphism may allow surgeons who perform gender-affirming procedures to achieve more natural-appearing results. A total of 60 chests were analyzed using either cadaveric dissection (n = 30) or virtual dissection with 3-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions of computed tomography (CT) images (n = 30) using the Vitrea® software. Chest proportions were recorded using each technique, correlating surface anatomy with muscular and bony landmarks. Cadaveric and 3-D radiography chest analysis revealed that natal male chest walls are, on average, wider and longer than natal female chest walls. The pectoralis major muscle dimensions and the location of its insertion were not found to significantly differ between male and female chests. The male nipple-areolar complex (NAC) tended to be narrower in length and width, with a less projecting nipple than the female NAC. Finally, the IMF was found to lie over the interspace between the fifth and sixth rib in both male and female chests. Our findings confirm natal male and female IMF are positioned between the 5th and 6th ribs. This fact affirms the senior author's technique of masculinizing the chest, keeping the masculinized IMF at approximately the same level as the natal female IMF and following the pectoralis major muscle edges to define the resulting scar in a way that differs from previously reported techniques.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Importance

Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.

Objective

To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.

Evidence Review

In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).

Findings

In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Factors Associated with Experiences of Gender-Affirming Health Care: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Transgender people often pursue gender-affirming health care (GAH), such as hormone therapy and/or surgeries. While research has begun to explore influences on general health care for transgender individuals, less is known about the experiences of GAH specifically. We aimed to systematically review the factors associated with experiences of GAH.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant literature using a predetermined search strategy. Studies were screened by two researchers to determine whether they fit the inclusion criteria. Following quality appraisal and data extraction, results were thematically analyzed.

Results

Thirty-eight studies were included in the review. Factors associated with experiences of GAH were broadly categorized as follows: (i) sociodemographic factors, (ii) treatment-related factors, (iii) psychosocial factors, and (iv) health care interactions, with health care interactions, in particular, being strong determinants of experience.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that experiences of GAH may be determined by a number of diverse factors, which have implications for understanding how to better support those undergoing transition. In particular, health care professionals play a key role in determining how transgender people experience treatment, which should be considered when providing care for this population.

Donor Site Satisfaction Following Autologous Fat Transfer for Total Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

With evolving breast cancer survival and patient preferences, it is essential that reconstructive surgeons worldwide continue searching for the best reconstruction technique for patients. Autologous fat transfer (AFT) is a relatively new technique for total breast reconstruction that has already proven to be effective and safe with all advantages of autologous tissue. However, little is known about the aesthetic results and satisfaction concerning donor sites.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to measure donor site satisfaction following AFT for total breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

Between May and August of 2021, participants of the BREAST- trial who were at least 24 months after their final reconstruction surgery were invited to complete an additional survey concerning donor sites. The BODY-Q was utilized for data collection. Results of AFT patients were compared with a control group of implant-based reconstruction patients who did not have a donor site.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients (20 control, 31 intervention) completed the questionnaire. Satisfaction with body did not statistically differ between the groups. The most frequent complaint was contour irregularities (31 reports, 60.8%), with the least favorable donor site being thighs (23 reports, 53.5%) in the AFT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfaction with body did not differ between breast cancer patients receiving AFT or implant-based reconstruction, meaning that large-volume liposuction does not aesthetically affect the utilized donor sites. Nevertheless, reconstructive surgeons should be aware of possible donor site complications, especially contour irregularities at the thighs, and discuss this with their patients.

Hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy: A systematic review of the evidence

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

III.