Breast Augmentation in the Transfemale Patient: Comprehensive Principles for Planning and Obtaining Ideal Results

Chest Feminization in Transwomen with Subfascial Breast Augmentation-Our Technique and Results

BACKGROUND

The increasing population of this minority community is approaching plastic surgeons more frequently to achieve their dream of becoming a phenotypic female, the breast being the single sure identity. After undergoing the bottom surgery (SRS) which is essential for them to gain entry into the transgender community, very few take up hormone therapy; the rest approach plastic surgeons for chest feminization which includes breast augmentation.

METHODS

A total of 177 transgenders underwent subfascial breast augmentation between 2014 and 2023. They were followed up for 10 years. Their demographics were documented. Operative details and postoperative complications were analyzed. Patient-related outcome measures were performed for size, appearance and cleavage.

RESULTS

A well-performed surgery in our cohort had a good aesthetic outcome even after many years. Only three patients were dissatisfied with the size; revision surgeries of 12 patients done elsewhere had many complications like wound dehiscence and exposure, scar hypertrophy, low placed axillary scars, capsular contracture, asymmetry, and nonspecific pain. All of them had submuscular placement.

CONCLUSIONS

The subfascial placement of implants in transwomen had good aesthetic outcomes with fewer complications and good acceptance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Gender-affirming surgeries for transgender and gender diverse individuals and associated health outcomes

Gender-affirming care is treatment that recognizes and affirms the gender identity of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. Though not all TGD people choose to surgically transition, gender-affirming surgeries (GAS) are an important part of many TGD people's transition. GAS can include a wide array of procedures aimed at aligning an individual's physical characteristics and gender identity. This review describes the most common procedures considered to be GAS, detailing important relevant considerations for each procedure. These include transfeminine procedures (i.e., breast augmentation, penile inversion vaginoplasty, orchiectomy, tracheal shave, and facial feminization); transmasculine procedures (i.e., chest masculinization, hysterectomy, phalloplasty, and metoidioplasty); and other procedures (i.e., fertility preservation and hair removal). Patient outcomes and the legal landscape for GAS are also discussed to contextualize these procedures within largest discourses surrounding gender-affirming care.

Sexual Function in Post-surgical Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals

Surgical treatment for gender dysphoria consists of facial, chest, and genital surgery. Chest and genital gender affirmation surgeries alter the form and function of the native organs. This can have a profound impact on sexual function for transgender and gender- diverse individuals. In this article, the authors will discuss the impacts that chest and genital gender affirmation surgeries can have on sexual function.

Complications following Breast Augmentation in Transfeminine Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed procedure for gender affirmation in transfeminine individuals. Although adverse events among breast augmentation in cisgender women are well described, their relative incidence in transfeminine patients is less elucidated. This study aims to compare complication rates after breast augmentation between cisgender women and transfeminine patients and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of breast augmentation in transfeminine individuals.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and other resources were queried for studies published up to January of 2022. A total of 1864 transfeminine patients from 14 studies were included in this project. Primary outcomes including complications (capsular contracture, hematoma or seroma, infection, implant asymmetry/malposition, hemorrhage, skin or systemic complications), patient satisfaction, and reoperation rates were pooled. A direct comparison of these rates was performed against historical rates in cisgender women.

RESULTS

Within the transfeminine group, the pooled rate of capsular contracture was 3.62% (95% CI, 0.0038 to 0.0908); the hematoma/seroma rate was 0.63% (95% CI, 0.0014 to 0.0134); the infection incidence was 0.08% (95% CI, 0.0000 to 0.0054); and implant asymmetry rate was 3.89% (95% CI, 0.0149 to 0.0714). There was no statistical difference between rates of capsular contracture ( P = 0.41) and infection ( P = 0.71) between the transfeminine versus cisgender groups, whereas there were higher rates of hematoma/seroma ( P = 0.0095) and implant asymmetry/malposition ( P < 0.00001) in the transfeminine group.

CONCLUSION

Breast augmentation is an important procedure for gender affirmation and, in transfeminine individuals, carries relatively higher rates of postoperative hematoma and implant malposition relative to cisgender women.

[New S2k guideline "Surgical techniques for gender incongruence"]

BACKGROUND

Various techniques for the surgical treatment of gender incongruence (GI) have been available for years. The spectrum is broad and covers various specialties. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of clinics offering body-modifying procedures. This has led to a considerable variation in methods in some cases. Although the topic has recently found its way more and more into teaching and the relevant specialist literature, there are still no evidence-based recommendations on the various techniques.

AIM

A compendium of established surgical techniques was to be compiled, containing recommendations on indication, performance and aftercare as well as complication management and subjecting them to a consensus-based evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with "Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften" (AWMF) regulations, the guideline was developed at level S2k, i.e., it is consensus based. The guideline group was founded in February 2019 in a formal constituent meeting. A total of 14 medical societies and 2 interest groups were recruited for the guideline work. In the end, two consensus meetings were held, which was due to the large number of recommendations and background texts to be adopted.

RESULTS

The guideline focuses on the choice and applicability of surgical techniques as well as the wishes of those seeking treatment and protection of fertility. There is a wide variety of methods and treatment goals for each individual. Taking into account medical standards, recommendations, and contraindications, an optimal result that minimizes individual suffering can be achieved together with the person seeking treatment.

CONCLUSION

The content of the guideline represents a unique compendium of surgical methods, recommendations for the selection of procedures, and common indications in the field of body-modifying surgery for gender incongruence.

Technical and Clinical Differences Between Transgender and Cisgender Females Undergoing Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Gender-affirming surgery is a quickly expanding field. However, it is facing a shortage of specialized surgeons for a population exceeding 1.4 million individuals. Many studies comparing outcomes between cisgender and transgender patients fail to describe the technical differences of the operation. Breast augmentation in the transgender female patient involves important anatomical, technical, and clinical features that differ from the cisgender female. In this study, we aimed to describe and compare these characteristics between these 2 groups to better inform the new generation of gender-affirming surgeons.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent primary breast augmentation between 2009 and 2019 at a specialized tertiary center for transgender care was performed. Mastopexy, secondary augmentation, and reconstructive procedures were excluded. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected from medical records. All patients had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up after the initial surgery. Bivariate analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 250 cisgender females and 153 transgender females were included. The transgender group showed higher rates of smoking ( P < 0.0001), immunosuppression ( P < 0.0001), obesity ( P < 0.0001), mental health disorders ( P < 0.0001), and hypertension ( P = 0.002). Median base width ( P < 0.0001), sternal notch to nipple distance ( P < 0.0001), and implant size (500 mL [interquartile range, 425-600 mL] vs 350 mL [interquartile range, 325-385 mL]; P < 0.0001) were larger in transgender patients. Transgender patients also demonstrated a stronger correlation between implant size and body surface area ( r = 0.71, P < 0.0001). Readmission, reoperation, and complication rates were similar between the groups; however, transgender females had a higher incidence of surgical site infections (3.9% vs 0.4%, P < 0.013). Capsular contracture was the most common complication and indication for reoperation in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There are important anatomical, clinical, and technical differences between reconstructive gender-affirming breast augmentation in transgender female patients and cosmetic breast augmentation in the cisgender female. The gender-affirming surgeon must know these differences to provide the best quality of care and help patients achieve better congruence between their gender identity and body image.

[Thoracic reassignment surgeries]

Thoracic reassignment surgeries are the most common gender reassignment surgeries. They represent the first and sometimes the only step in the reassignment process for transgender patients. Surgical techniques for thoracic reassignment derive from those used for the cisgender population and are accessible to plastic surgeons who do not usually treat transgender patients. On the other hand, there are some anatomical differences between men and women that they should understand, for instance, the positioning of the neo-NAC, the neo-inframammary fold and the scars. It is therefore important to understand these anatomical differences in order to optimize the cosmetic results of these surgeries so that they correspond to the expectations of these patients. In addition, the plastic surgeon will also have to be careful to adapt his approach to the relational level, with these patients, such as avoiding misgendering or using the "dead name". Finally, even if these operations are theoretically covered at 100% by the French health insurance, a request for prior agreement may be required in certain cases.

Delayed, dramatic breast swelling in a transgender woman: a case report

Background

As the number of gender-affirming procedures performed in the United States increases, physicians caring for gender-nonconforming patients, regardless of practice location and focus, will likely encounter transgender women with breast implants. Increasingly, transgender women are seeking breast feminization. However, this population is less consistently receiving surveillance and routine breast care than cisgender women.

Aim

This report aims to add to the growing body of knowledge addressing breast augmentation complications in transgender women and to highlight disparities in healthcare.

Methods

A case of breast implant-associated seroma at our institution was analyzed through chart review. A literature review was conducted using PubMed to gather all articles discussing breast implant-associated fluid collections in transgender patients. Prior to publication of this report, a Waiver of Consent was granted by the E.R.'s Institutional Review Board for the study under which this article was prepared.

Results

Our patient was an African American transgender woman presenting initially at age 60 with significant asymmetry due to dramatic swelling of her left breast. The patient underwent bilateral breast augmentation outside of the United States 2 decades prior. The patient noted a gradual painless increase in her left breast size starting 3 years prior. She admitted that she was hesitant to seek a second opinion after being treated dismissively by another surgeon. Subsequent management included mammography and mirrored recommendations for late breast implant-associated seromas in cisgender patients: ultrasound, aspiration for cytology and culture, and removal of the implant and capsule.

Outcomes

The fluid collection in our patient was determined to be a chronic hematoma and was managed surgically. Though this patient eventually achieved a good outcome, treatment was delayed due to barriers she faced as a transgender woman.

Clinical Implications

Literature demonstrates that recommended management of late-onset breast-implant-associated seroma does not differ based on gender identity; however, transgender and GNC adults are more likely to receive less thorough care than cisgender women. Any patients undergoing breast augmentation with implants should be routinely evaluated for late complications, including seromas, which require prompt attention and methodical evaluation due to their potentially malignant nature.

Strengths and Limitations

This article is limited in that it is a single report of breast seroma. It is strengthened by a PubMed review gathering all articles discussing breast-implant-associated fluid collections in transgender patients.

Conclusion

We propose better education of physicians on how to care for transgender and gender-diverse patients should help mitigate the neglect and late presentation of such medical conditions in this vulnerable and marginalized population.

Implant Attributes or Patient Characteristics? Factors Affecting Outcome after Breast Augmentation in Transgender Women

Implant-based breast augmentation is a valuable tool for treatment of gender dysphoria in transgender women. The aim was to assess whether implant attributes, plane selection, and patient characteristics had an impact on the surgical outcome, and to compare these parameters between transgender and cisgender breast augmentations.

Methods

A cohort of transgender women who underwent breast augmentation at our department during 2009-2018 were retrospectively studied. The cohort was also compared with a cohort of 12,884 mainly cisgender women registered in the Swedish breast implant registry (BRIMP) during 2014-2019.

Results

A total of 143 transgender individuals were included, with a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Complications occurred in 20 patients (14.0%), four patients (2.8%) underwent acute reoperation, and 20 patients (14.0%) had secondary corrections. No differences were seen in complication rates when comparing prepectoral with subpectoral placement (15.1% versus 12.9%; P = 0.81); size, less than 400 mL versus greater than or equal to 400 mL (14.7% versus 13.3%; P = 0.81), or the shape of the implants, round versus anatomic (10.7% versus 22.2%; P = 0.10). In comparison with the cohort from BRIMP, the transgender cohort had more round implants (72.0% versus 60.7%; P < 0.01), larger implants (44.1% had volumes of 400-599 mL, compared with 25.4%; P < 0.0001), and more prepectoral placement (51.0% versus 7.3%; P < 0.0001). The risk of reoperation less than 30 days was 1.2% in BRIMP and 2.8% in the transgender cohort (P = 0.08).

Conclusions

In transgender women, implants are often larger, round, and placed prepectoral' compared with cisgender women. Despite these differences, complication rates were equivalent. Implant attributes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics were not independently associated with the rate of complications.

ESSM Position Statement "Sexual Wellbeing After Gender Affirming Surgery"

INTRODUCTION

Much has been published on the surgical and functional results following Gender Affirming Surgery ('GAS') in trans individuals. Comprehensive results regarding sexual wellbeing following GAS, however, are generally lacking.

AIM

To review the impact of various GAS on sexual wellbeing in treatment seeking trans individuals, and provide a comprehensive list of clinical recommendations regarding the various surgical options of GAS on behalf of the European Society for Sexual Medicine.

METHODS

The Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were reviewed on the results of sexual wellbeing after GAS.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE

The task force established consensus statements regarding the somatic and general requirements before GAS and of GAS: orchiectomy-only, vaginoplasty, breast augmentation, vocal feminization surgery, facial feminization surgery, mastectomy, removal of the female sexual organs, metaidoioplasty, and phalloplasty. Outcomes pertaining to sexual wellbeing- sexual satisfaction, sexual relationship, sexual response, sexual activity, enacted sexual script, sexuality, sexual function, genital function, quality of sex life and sexual pleasure- are provided for each statement separately.

RESULTS

The present position paper provides clinicians with statements and recommendations for clinical practice, regarding GAS and their effects on sexual wellbeing in trans individuals. These data, are limited and may not be sufficient to make evidence-based recommendations for every surgical option. Findings regarding sexual wellbeing following GAS were mainly positive. There was no data on sexual wellbeing following orchiectomy-only, vocal feminization surgery, facial feminization surgery or the removal of the female sexual organs. The choice for GAS is dependent on patient preference, anatomy and health status, and the surgeon's skills. Trans individuals may benefit from studies focusing exclusively on the effects of GAS on sexual wellbeing.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests positive results regarding sexual wellbeing following GAS. We advise more studies that underline the evidence regarding sexual wellbeing following GAS. This position statement may aid both clinicians and patients in decision-making process regarding the choice for GAS. Özer M, Toulabi SP, Fisher AD, et al. ESSM Position Statement "Sexual Wellbeing After Gender Affirming Surgery". Sex Med 2022;10:100471.

Initial Clinical Needs Among Transgender and Non-binary Individuals in a Large, Urban Gender Health Program

BACKGROUND

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals are particularly vulnerable to healthcare discrimination and related health sequelae.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate diversity in demographics and explore variance in needs at the time of intake among patients seeking care at a large, urban gender health program.

DESIGN

We present summary statistics of patient demographics, medical histories, and gender-affirming care needs stratified by gender identity and sexual orientation.

PARTICIPANTS

We reviewed all intake interviews with individuals seeking care in our gender health program from 2017 to 2020.

MAIN MEASURES

Clients reported all the types of care in which they were interested at the time of intake as their "reason for call" (i.e., establish primary care, hormone management, surgical services, fertility services, behavioral health, or other health concerns).

KEY RESULTS

Of 836 patients analyzed, 350 identified as trans women, 263 as trans men, and 223 as non-binary. The most prevalent sexual identity was straight among trans women (34%) and trans men (38%), whereas most (69%) non-binary individuals identified as pansexual or queer; only 3% of non-binary individuals identified as straight. Over half of patients reported primary care, hormone management, or surgical services as the primary reason for contacting our program. Straight, transgender women were more likely to report surgical services as their primary reason for contacting our program, whereas gay transgender men were more likely to report primary care as their reason.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals contacting our gender health program to establish care were diverse in sexual orientation and gender-affirming care needs. Care needs varied with both gender identity and sexual orientation, but primary care, hormone management, and surgical services were high priorities across groups. Providers of gender-affirming care should inquire about sexual orientation and detailed treatment priorities, as trans and gender-diverse populations are not uniform in their treatment needs or goals.

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)

OBJECTIVE

To perform the first systematic review of all available gender-affirming surgery (GAS) publications across all procedures to assess both outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rapidly increasing clinical volumes of gender-affirming surgeries have stimulated a growing need for high-quality clinical research. Although some procedures have been performed for decades, each individual procedure has limited data, necessitating synthesis of the entire literature to understand current knowledge and guide future research.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including PCOs, complications, and functional outcomes. Outcome data were pooled to assess currently reported complication, satisfaction, and other outcome rates.

RESULTS

Overall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications. Of non-genitoplasty titles, 35 were mastectomy, 6 mammoplasty, 21 facial feminization, and 31 voice/cartilage. Although 59.1% of non-genitoplasty papers addressed PCOs in some form, only 4.3% used instruments partially-validated in transgender patients. Overall, data were reported heterogeneously and were biased towards high-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the most comprehensive review of GAS literature. By aggregating all previously utilized measurement instruments, this study offers a foundation for discussions about current methodologic limitations and what dimensions must be included in assessing surgical success. We have assembled a comprehensive list of outcome instruments; this offers an ideal starting basis for emerging discussions between patients and providers about deficiencies which new, better instruments and metrics must address. The lack of consistent use of the same outcome measures and validated GAS-specific instruments represent the 2 primary barriers to high-quality research where improvement efforts should be focused.

Long-term Follow-up and Trends in Breast Augmentation in 527 Transgender Women and Nonbinary Individuals: A 30-year experience in Amsterdam

BACKGROUND

Transgender women and transfeminine spectrum nonbinary individuals may opt for breast augmentation. The aim of the study is to analyze the complications, surgical trends, and long-term follow-up of breast augmentations in this population over the past 30 years.

METHODS

All transgender women and nonbinary individuals who underwent breast augmentation at our center between 01-1990 and 01-2020 were retrospectively identified. A retrospective chart study was conducted, recording individual demographics, implant characteristics, surgical timing, postoperative complications or other reasons requiring reoperation, and implant survival. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE on clinical outcomes and revision surgery of this procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 527 individuals were identified. Median clinical follow-up time was 11.2 years (interquartile range 3.3-17.5). Median implant size increased significantly over the last years (1990-1990 median 275cc, 2000-2009 252cc, 2010-2019 375cc, p<0.01). Most individuals underwent breast augmentation and genital gender-affirming surgery in one-stage. Reoperations due to short-term complications were infrequent (hematoma (0.4%) or infection (0.4%)). Reoperations due to long-term complications comprised: implant rupture (5.7%), capsular contracture (4.9%), aesthetic problems (3.8%), low-grade infection (0.4%), or seroma (0.6%). In total, 2.5% of individuals requested larger implants. After performing the literature search and manuscript screening, 9 out of 115 identified studies were included for review. Follow-up time ranged from 30 days to 5.5 years. Reported complications requiring reoperation were capsular contraction (range 0.0-5.6%), asymmetry (3.6%), hematoma (range 0.0-2.9%), infection (range 0.0-0.9%) and implant rupture (0.7%), CONCLUSION: Implant-based breast augmentation is a safe procedure in transgender individuals.

An Updated Overview of Gender Dysphoria and Gender Affirmation Surgery: What Every Plastic Surgeon Should Know

Gender dysphoria refers to the medical condition experienced by individuals whose physical anatomy is not consistent with their gender identity. Surgery is a safe and effective treatment for many individuals, yet the current demand for surgery exceeds the number of trained surgeons. This article reviews gender-affirming surgical procedures and emphasizes an individualized approach within the context of a multidisciplinary team. We review pre-, intra-, and postoperative care including the preoperative requirements for surgery.

Breast augmentation in the transgender patient: narrative review of current techniques and complications

Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is often a crucial step during the journey to identity actualization for transgender patients. Surgical breast augmentation, or "top surgery", is frequently cited as the most important and sometimes only gender-affirming procedure sought by transfeminine patients. The breast augmentation process is remarkably similar in transgender and cisgender patients. However, there are unique guidelines, anatomic considerations, and contextual issues for the transgender patient population that must be taken into account by providers to achieve optimal outcomes. The aim of this review is to outline the current state of breast augmentation for transfeminine patients. We walk through our suggested pre-surgical evaluation, breast augmentation options, and post-surgical care. In the preoperative period, providers must establish a positive provider-patient relationship that allows for thorough history taking, physical examination, and goal setting. Providers must be able to select an appropriate implant, incision location, and operative plane to balance patient desires and pre-existing anatomic characteristics in transfeminine patients. Postoperatively, the provider must address acute and chronic needs to allow for continued satisfaction and safety. After reading this review, we aim for providers to be well-equipped to provide the highest quality breast augmentation care for their transfeminine patients. As research into best practices for breast augmentation in transfeminine patients continues to develop, we expect that surgical practice will continue to evolve.

A review of gender affirmation surgery: What we know, and what we need to know

BACKGROUND

Gender-affirmation surgery is a rapidly growing field in plastic surgery, urologic surgery, and gynecologic surgery. These procedures offer significant benefit to patients in reducing gender dysphoria and improving well-being. However, the details of gender-affirmation surgery are less well-known to other surgical subspecialties and other medical subspecialties. The data behind gender-affirmation surgery are comparatively sparse, and due to the recency of the field, large gaps exist in the literature.

METHODS

PubMed searches were carried out specific to gender-affirming mastectomies, vaginoplasty, vulvaplasty, mastectomy, metoidioplasty, and phalloplasty. Combinations and variants of "gender affirming," "gender confirming," "transgender," and other variants were used to ensure broad capture. Historical articles were also reviewed. The data gathered were collated and summarized.

RESULTS

Gender-affirmation surgery is generally safe. Complication rates for gender-affirming mastectomy and breast augmentation are very low, and complication rates for genital surgeries are also reasonably low. Gender-affirmation surgery decreases rates of gender dysphoria, depression, and suicidality, and significantly improves quality-of-life measures. Data regarding facial gender-affirming surgery are limited. There are very few patient-reported outcome measures specific to gender-affirmation surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although the data behind male-to-female gender-affirming surgery are more robust, there are significant gaps in the literature with respect to female-to-male surgery, surgical complication rates for genital surgery, facial masculinization and feminization, and patient-reported outcomes. We therefore present recommendations for further study.