An Option for Shaft-Only Gender-Affirming Phalloplasty: Vaginal Preservation and Vulvoscrotoplasty. A Technical Description

Vaginal Preservation in Shaft-Only Phalloplasty: Y-to-V Advancement Technique for Clitoral Hood Redundancy and Reduction Labiaplasty

SUMMARY

As the prevalence and understanding of genital gender-affirming surgery have grown, so has the spectrum of surgical techniques to better serve a wider range of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Given the diverse spectrum of individuals seeking phalloplasty, patient-driven decision-making, beginning with the initial consultation, is critical. Phalloplasty is not a one-size-fits-all surgery, but instead should be viewed as an individually customized approach. This article discusses the technical details of vaginal preservation without scrotoplasty or clitoral tissue burial in a shaft-only phalloplasty. The technique involves degloving the clitoral shaft with inset at the ventral base of the phallus, addressing the redundant clitoral hood, and accompanying reduction labiaplasty with a Y-to-V adjacent tissue transfer. The phallus may be neurotized with clitoral nerves from one side of the clitoris and/or the ilioinguinal nerve. This technique obliterates the degloved clitoral hood and resuspends the labia minora anteriorly, improving final aesthetics and striving to meet the patient's genital goals.

Urinary symptoms after genital gender-affirming penile construction, urethral lengthening and vaginectomy

Transgender and non-binary (TGNB) individuals are seeking penile reconstruction in greater numbers; many pursue urethral lengthening surgery with a goal of voiding while standing. Changes in urinary function and urologic complications-i.e., urethrocutaneous fistulae and urinary stricture-are common. Familiarity with presenting symptoms and management strategies for urinary complaints after genital gender-affirming surgery (GGAS) can improve patient counseling and outcomes. We will describe current gender-affirming penile construction options with urethral lengthening and review associated urinary complications that present as urinary incontinence. The incidence and impact of lower urinary tract symptoms after metoidioplasty and phalloplasty are poorly characterized due to limited post-operative follow-up. Post-phalloplasty, urethrocutaneous fistula is the most common urethral complication, ranging in incidence from 15-70%. Assessment of concomitant urethral stricture is necessary. No standard technique exists for management of these fistula or strictures. Metoidioplasty studies report lower rates of stricture and fistula, 2% and 9% respectively. Other common voiding complaints include dribbling, urethral diverticula and vaginal remnants. History and physical exam in the post-GGAS evaluation require understanding of prior surgeries and attempted reconstructive efforts; adjuncts to physical exam include uroflowmetry, retrograde urethrography, voiding cysto-urethrogram, cystoscopy, and MRI. Following gender-affirming penile construction, TGNB patients may experience a host of urinary symptoms and complications that impact quality of life. Due to anatomic differences, symptoms require tailored evaluation which can be done by urologists in an affirming environment.

Comparison of surgical outcomes and urinary functioning after phalloplasty with versus without urethral lengthening in transgender men

Background: Phalloplasty in transgender men is performed with or without Urethral Lengthening (UL). To create clear expectations in the choice of UL, an overview and comparison of outcomes is useful. Aims: To provide and compare surgical outcomes and urinary functioning after phalloplasty with versus without UL in transgender men. Methods: A single-center, retrospective chart review was conducted among transgender men who underwent phalloplasty with or without UL between 01-2013 and 10-2020. Primary outcomes were differences in complication and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were end-stages of voiding at last follow-up and differences in voiding analyses pre- and postoperatively. Results: Of 136 men, 91 (67%) underwent phalloplasty with, and 45 (33%) without UL. Wound infection (31 vs. 16%, p = 0.06) and partial flap loss (35 vs. 13%, p = 0.008) were predominately seen after UL. In the UL group, 43% urethral fistulas and 60% urethral strictures were observed, relative to one man without UL who had a urethral fistula (both p < 0.001). Meatal or perineal orifice stenosis was seen in 29% with versus 11% without UL (p = 0.02). Reoperation was needed in 81% with versus 27% without UL (p < 0.001). At follow-up, 80/91 (88%) after UL reached end-stage of voiding, with 60/80 (75%) able to void while standing and 20/80 (25%) having a definitive urethrostomy. The remaining 11/91 (12%) men were awaiting further treatment for urological complications. The men able to void while standing had a median of one reoperation (range 0-6), and a significant decrease in maximum flow rate on postoperative uroflowmetry (21.4 vs. 29.8 mL/s, p < 0.001). After phalloplasty without UL, all men had a definitive perineostomy without changes in voiding analyses. Discussion: The choice for or against UL during phalloplasty has become more relevant over the years. This comparison of surgical outcomes and urinary functioning can be useful in the shared decision-making process to come to the most suitable choice of phalloplasty.

Transgender data collection in the electronic health record: Current concepts and issues

There are over 1 million transgender people living in the United States, and 33% report negative experiences with a healthcare provider, many of which are connected to data representation in electronic health records (EHRs). We present recommendations and common pitfalls involving sex- and gender-related data collection in EHRs. Our recommendations leverage the needs of patients, medical providers, and researchers to optimize both individual patient experiences and the efficacy and reproducibility of EHR population-based studies. We also briefly discuss adequate additions to the EHR considering name and pronoun usage. We add the disclaimer that these questions are more complex than commonly assumed. We conclude that collaborations between local transgender and gender-diverse persons and medical providers as well as open inclusion of transgender and gender-diverse individuals on terminology and standards boards is crucial to shifting the paradigm in transgender and gender-diverse health.

Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions

INTRODUCTION

Masculinizing genital gender affirmation surgery (MgGAS) has witnessed significant change in recent years. With the increasing number of patients seeking out GAS, optimization of techniques is mandated.

OBJECTIVES

To critically review the evolution of MgGAS, in a manner that encompasses the history and scope of the procedures, including phalloplasty with and without urethral lengthening, metoidioplasty with and without urethral lengthening, penile prosthesis placement, scrotoplasty, testicular prosthesis placement, vaginectomy, and hysterectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using PubMed. For our search, we generated a comprehensive list of MgGAS, combined with synonyms for GAS to ensure that articles included transgender cohorts. We identified a total of 547 articles from the search terms. Of these articles, 144 abstracts were relevant. Among these abstracts, 108 manuscripts were reviewed in full of which 98 were acceptable for inclusion. We excluded non-English-language studies without translation and studies that did not describe primary gGAS (eg, revision surgeries).

RESULTS

The evolution of MgGAS encompasses mostly refinements of pre-existing procedures, rather than new techniques or "watershed" procedures. The literature is somewhat lacking in outcomes-reporting that identifies the specific anatomy and surgical technique(s) used during gGAS. Without clarity regarding anatomy and technique, it is not feasible to compare surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal MgGAS; thus, it is critical that the physician assist the patient in understanding the outcomes and potential morbidity of the procedures to make the most informed decision. We envision that the future of MgGAS will advance with refinement of surgical techniques that minimize complications, improvement of tissue therapeutic technologies, new surgical tools and prosthetics designed for gGAS, advances in aftercare, and an immense selection of surgical options. Walton A, Hellstrom WJG, Garcia M. Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:605-618.