Breast augmentation for transfeminine patients: methods, complications, and outcomes

Feminizing Gender Affirming Breast Surgery: Procedural Outcomes at a Single Academic Institution

Background

Implant-based breast augmentation is a gold standard procedure for transfeminine patients to create a more feminine-appearing chest. In many cases, ancillary procedures are performed simultaneously to achieve an optimal aesthetic result.

Objectives

To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing feminizing gender-affirming breast surgery in a single academic institution.

Methods

A retrospective electronic chart review of feminizing gender-affirming breast surgery patients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from 2017 to 2022 was conducted. Patients' demographics and surgical outcomes were gathered. A survival analysis was performed to obtain the time-to-event complication rate.

Results

Over 5 years, 46 patients (92 breasts) were included. The mean age was 39 years (standard deviation [SD] ±15), and most had an above-normal body mass index (BMI) (58.7%). Thirty (65%) had previous gender-affirming surgeries. The mean implant volume was 289 mL (SD ±95; 140-520). Most implants were placed in a subglandular plane (81%) with an inframammary fold incision (91.3%). All implants used were smooth, round cohesive silicone gel implants. Ancillary procedures were performed in 32 patients (69.57%). Eight patients presented complications (4 major vs 4 minor) in a median postoperative follow-up of 372 vs 392 days; at 1-month follow-up, the probability of a complication having occurred is 2.17% (95% CI: 0%-6.3%) vs 5% (95% CI: 0%-11.5%), and at 1 year, the probability is 10.21% (95% CI: 0%-20.9%) vs 12.5% (95% CI: 0%-23.4%), which remains the same up to 4 years.

Conclusions

Breast augmentation with implants is a safe procedure to achieve feminization of the breast with a low rate of complications.

Level of Evidence 4

Breast Reconstruction following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer or Prophylactic Mastectomy: Therapeutic Options and Results

(1) Importance of problem: Breast cancer accounted for 685,000 deaths globally in 2020, and half of all cases occur in women with no specific risk factor besides gender and age group. During the last four decades, we have seen a 40% reduction in age-standardized breast cancer mortality and have also witnessed a reduction in the medium age at diagnosis, which in turn means that the number of mastectomies performed for younger women increased, raising the need for adequate breast reconstructive surgery. Advances in oncological treatment have made it possible to limit the extent of what represents radical surgery for breast cancer, yet in the past decade, we have seen a marked trend toward mastectomies in breast-conserving surgery-eligible patients. Prophylactic mastectomies have also registered an upward trend. This trend together with new uses for breast reconstruction like chest feminization in transgender patients has increased the need for breast reconstruction surgery. (2) Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze the types of reconstructive procedures, their indications, their limitations, their functional results, and their safety profiles when used during the integrated treatment plan of the oncologic patient. (3) Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review of the main reconstructive techniques, especially the autologous procedures; summarized the findings; and presented a few cases from our own experience for exemplification of the usage of breast reconstruction in oncologic patients. (4) Conclusions: Breast reconstruction has become a necessary step in the treatment of most breast cancers, and many reconstructive techniques are now routinely practiced. Microsurgical techniques are considered the "gold standard", but they are not accessible to all services, from a technical or financial point of view, so pediculated flaps remain the safe and reliable option, along with alloplastic procedures, to improve the quality of life of these patients.

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.

A bibliometric and visualized study on global trends of breast augmentation complications, 2011-2021

Background

Women undergo breast augmentation surgery for a variety of reasons, but surgical complications can seriously affect patient outcomes and quality of life, making it a hot research topic. Although a large body of literature exists in this field, a lack of systemic generalization hinders the ability to guide clinical practice. We aimed to identify the current research hotspots and common surgical approaches of breast augmentation and to predict future research hotspots by analyzing the literature of the past 10 years.

Methods

All relevant literature on breast augmentation complications were screened in the Web of Science (WoS) platform from 2011 to 2021. We analyzed the research within this field using the software programs VOSviewer and CiteSpace.

Results

In total, 2,798 publications were selected. The United States ranked first in the world (1,173 articles), followed by Italy (243 articles), and the United Kingdom (208 articles). Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was the institution with the most publications, but the academic achievements of Harvard were the most recognized. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was the most prominent of all journals in terms of both the number and quality of the articles published. Albornoz was the hub author in the co-citation network. Keyword cluster analysis showed that capsular contracture, breast cancer, and postoperative nausea, among others, were the hotspots and trends of research in recent years.

Conclusions

This study comprehensively summarized and analyzed the research trends of breast augmentation complications worldwide. Capsular contracture and postoperative nausea are current research hotspots. Periareolar incision and the breast crease incision are the most common incision approaches. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a future research hotspot.

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.

Correction of Areolar Protuberance During Augmentation Mammoplasty in Transfemale Patients

Augmentation mammoplasty refers to "top surgery" for transfemale patients. Before this surgery, due to the hormonal treatment being taken, it may be encountered that there would be a glandular tissue of breast that seems to be similar to the simple tuberous breast disease, which is one of the diseases in female breast development. The presence of areolar protuberance in transfemale would of course undermine the cosmetic gain after augmentation mammoplasty operation. This situation, which can be difficult to diagnose before surgery especially in transfemale patients, will manifest itself clearly after the end of augmentation mammoplasty. As a precaution, resection of a part of glandular tissue equal to the protruding height of the areola from the posterior wall of the gland is an effective method both in terms of its simple applicability and not to use of an extra skin incision while performing augmentation mammoplasty.

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8

Background: Transgender healthcare is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field. In the last decade, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and visibility of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people seeking support and gender-affirming medical treatment in parallel with a significant rise in the scientific literature in this area. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is an international, multidisciplinary, professional association whose mission is to promote evidence-based care, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health. One of the main functions of WPATH is to promote the highest standards of health care for TGD people through the Standards of Care (SOC). The SOC was initially developed in 1979 and the last version (SOC-7) was published in 2012. In view of the increasing scientific evidence, WPATH commissioned a new version of the Standards of Care, the SOC-8. Aim: The overall goal of SOC-8 is to provide health care professionals (HCPs) with clinical guidance to assist TGD people in accessing safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves with the aim of optimizing their overall physical health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment. Methods: The SOC-8 is based on the best available science and expert professional consensus in transgender health. International professionals and stakeholders were selected to serve on the SOC-8 committee. Recommendation statements were developed based on data derived from independent systematic literature reviews, where available, background reviews and expert opinions. Grading of recommendations was based on the available evidence supporting interventions, a discussion of risks and harms, as well as the feasibility and acceptability within different contexts and country settings. Results: A total of 18 chapters were developed as part of the SOC-8. They contain recommendations for health care professionals who provide care and treatment for TGD people. Each of the recommendations is followed by explanatory text with relevant references. General areas related to transgender health are covered in the chapters Terminology, Global Applicability, Population Estimates, and Education. The chapters developed for the diverse population of TGD people include Assessment of Adults, Adolescents, Children, Nonbinary, Eunuchs, and Intersex Individuals, and people living in Institutional Environments. Finally, the chapters related to gender-affirming treatment are Hormone Therapy, Surgery and Postoperative Care, Voice and Communication, Primary Care, Reproductive Health, Sexual Health, and Mental Health. Conclusions: The SOC-8 guidelines are intended to be flexible to meet the diverse health care needs of TGD people globally. While adaptable, they offer standards for promoting optimal health care and guidance for the treatment of people experiencing gender incongruence. As in all previous versions of the SOC, the criteria set forth in this document for gender-affirming medical interventions are clinical guidelines; individual health care professionals and programs may modify these in consultation with the TGD person.

Complications and satisfaction in transwomen receiving breast augmentation: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

To achieve long-term improvement in health care of transgender women, it is necessary to analyze all aspects of gender-confirming surgery, especially the relation of risks and benefits occurring in these procedures. While there are many studies presenting data on the urologic part of the surgery, there are just few data about complications and satisfaction with breast augmentation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using parts of the BREAST-Q Augmentation Questionnaire and additional questions for symptoms of capsular contracture and re-operations and analyzing archived patient records of all transwomen which were operated at University Hospital Essen from 2007 to 2020.

RESULTS

99 of these 159 patients (62%) completed the questionnaire after a median time of 4 years after surgery. Breast augmentation led to re-operations due to complications in 5%. The rate of capsular contracture (Baker Grad III-IV) in this population was 3%. Most patients (75%) rated high scores of satisfaction with outcome (more than 70 points) and denied to have restrictions due to their implants in their everyday life. All patients reported an improvement in their quality of life owing to breast augmentation.

CONCLUSION

Breast augmentation by inserting silicon implants is a safe surgical procedure which takes an important part in reducing gender dysphoria.

Trends in Breast Augmentation Research: A Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most demanded procedures in plastic surgery and one of the most commonly performed by plastic surgeons. However, a bibliometric analysis of breast augmentation has not been published in recent years. The current study aimed to use a bibliometric analysis to conduct a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of breast augmentation research and provide the research trends and hotspots in this field.

METHODS

Publications on breast augmentation research were extracted from the Web of Science core collection database. VOSviewer 1.6.18 was used to assess co-authorship, co-occurrence, citation of countries, institutions, authors, and journals, as well as hotspot keywords.

RESULTS

On February 8, 2022, 4637 records of breast augmentation research published from 1985 to 2021 were collected. The bulk of the retrieved studies were original research articles (n = 2235, 48.20%). A total of 1053 (22.71%) papers were open access. The annual publication output increased annually. The USA was the driving force in this field and had a strong academic reputation. The top-contributing institution was the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (2.37%, with 110 publications). Plastic and reconstructive surgery (998 publications, 21.52%) published the most research in this field and was also the most frequently co-cited journal (22,351 citations, total link strength (TLS): 409,301). Clemens MW (68 publications, 1.47%) was the most prolific author, and Spear SL (1456 citations, TLS: 27,231) was the most frequently co-cited author. The research hotspots included the following four aspects: safety and effectiveness of breast implants, implant-based breast reconstruction, breast cancer incidence after breast implantation, and breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The research trends were BIA-ALCL, implant-based breast reconstruction, BREAST-Q, acellular dermal matrix, capsular contracture, and autologous fat grafting.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a panoramic view of breast augmentation research in plastic and reconstructive surgery. This novel comprehensive bibliometric analysis can help researchers and nonresearchers alike to rapidly identify the potential partners, research hotspots, and research trends within their areas of interest.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

Creating Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Guidelines for Transgender Patients With BRCA Mutations

More than 1.5 million individuals in the United States identify as transgender. Transgender individuals have lower rates of health care utilization and higher rates of health care discrimination than cisgender patients. With a growing interest in providing comprehensive and compassionate care to the transgender community, there has been a concurrent increase in research on transgender health. However, lack of long-term data limits understanding the effects of hormone therapy on cancer risk factors in this population. This is particularly relevant for patients with hormonally mediated cancers and those at elevated risk from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes. Few cancer-screening and management guidelines currently exist for this population. Specific practices guided by the nuances of gender identity and gender-affirming care are essential to improve clinical management and to avoid further alienating a population that is already marginalized from the health care system. This commentary summarizes screening, management, and surveillance strategies devised for cisgender patients to offer corresponding recommendations tailored for transgender BRCA mutation carriers. In doing so, it highlights critical unanswered questions pertaining to the care of these patients. To address these questions, we must prioritize this population and adopt more inclusive frameworks in medicine and research.

Assessing Gender-Affirming Chest Surgery Outcomes: Does Gender Identity Alter Gaze?

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of gender-affirming chest surgery can be variable. Placement of nipple-areolar complexes and orientation of scars can drastically affect the aesthetic outcomes of these procedures, as may observer gender identity. Here, we compared attention and perception of outcomes following gender-affirming chest surgery between laypersons, based on gender identity.

METHODS

Transgender and cisgender participants were enrolled and shown images of surgery naïve chests and postoperative masculinized and feminized chests, blinded to the gender identity of the photographed subject. Gaze data were captured using the Tobii X2 60 eye-tracking device. Participants scored the perceived gender and aesthetic appearance of each image.

RESULTS

Eighteen cisgender and 14 transgender participants were enrolled. When viewing male chests, transgender participants spent significantly longer fixated on the nipples (naïve: 802 vs. 395 ms; p = 0.02, masculinized: 940 vs. 692 ms, p = 0.002). For masculinized chests, cisgender participants spent significantly longer fixated on the inframammary scar (483 vs. 391 ms; p = 0.04). On images of feminized chests, transgender participants spent longer viewing the nipples when compared to cisgender participants (1017 vs. 847 ms; p = 0.04). Cisgender viewers spent longer fixating on the postoperative scar on feminized chests (113 vs. 59 ms; p = 0.02) and also viewed feminized chests as significantly more masculine and masculinized chests as more feminine, when compared to transgender participants (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to use eye-tracking to assess how laypersons assess chests for gender determination. The findings suggest that observer gender identity has an effect on areas of focus and gender perception of chests that underwent gender-affirmation surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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.

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.