Quality of Life and Satisfaction in Transgender Men After Phalloplasty in a Retrospective Study

The Fall of the Nation's First Gender-Affirming Surgery Clinic

Johns Hopkins Hospital established the first gender-affirming surgery (GAS) clinic in the United States in 1966. Operating for more than 13 years, the clinic was abruptly closed in 1979. According to the hospital, the decision was made in response to objective evidence claiming that GAS was ineffective. However, this evidence directly contradicted many contemporaneous studies and faced immediate criticism from the scientific community. Despite this resistance, it took the hospital nearly 40 years to resume performing GAS. Scientific evidence-imbued in scandal, bias, and moralism-was instrumentalized to serve broader institutional interests. The burgeoning field of plastic surgery tethered and then untethered GAS from its auspices in response to poor technical outcomes and transphobia. No longer serving surgeons' interests, the clinic was marginalized to "barely minimal facilities" in 1974, five years before GAS was formally banned. Over the next 5 years, the clinic co-inhabited space with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Simultaneously, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology navigated scandals related to reproductive technology (namely, the Dalkon Shield [A.H. Robins] controversy) until the clinic space was demolished in 1979. The study that informed the GAS ban was preferentially funded in keeping with the political economy of biomedical research. This article presents a spatial argument for how the closure of the nation's first GAS clinic was not based in empirical data alone but was manipulated to fuel political and institutional agendas.

Surgical satisfaction and quality of life outcomes reported by transgender men and women at least one year post gender-affirming surgery: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Many transgender women and men undergo gender-affirming surgeries. Existing work shows that early surgery outcomes are generally positive, suggesting high surgical satisfaction and positive quality of life outcomes. Less work, however, examines these outcomes in the longer-term.

AIMS

To conduct a systematic literature review into the longer-term (i.e., ≥ 1 year) surgical satisfaction and quality of outcomes following various forms of gender-affirming surgery in transgender populations. Specifically, we aim to examine research on such outcomes at least one-year post gender-affirming chest, genital, facial, vocal cord, and Adam's apple removal surgeries.

METHODS

Studies were identified through Google Scholar, PsycINFO, Scopus, and PubMed databases, as well as through Google Scholar search alerts. We considered all studies published until October 2021. Two reviewers extracted data from suitable studies using Covidence. Both reviewers also independently assessed the identified studies' risk of bias and strength of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine low quality (e.g., small sample sizes, lack of control/comparison groups) studies suggest that most transgender patients are satisfied with surgical outcomes when assessed at least one-year post-surgery. Low quality research also indicates that transgender women and men typically report positive psychological and sexual wellbeing post-surgery, and similar wellbeing outcomes as those who have not had surgery.

DISCUSSION

To the best of our knowledge, this literature review is the first to critically summarize and evaluate all published studies on the longer-term quality of life outcomes following chest, genital, facial, voice and Adam's apple removal surgeries for transgender women and men. While the results suggest promising surgical satisfaction and quality of life outcomes following surgery, many studies only draw on small samples, and most studies do not allow for causal conclusions. Further, few studies have compared surgical outcomes between transgender women and men. We conclude by offering concrete suggestions for future research.