Developing Gender-Affirming Surgery Curricula for Plastic Surgery Residency and Fellowship via Delphi Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is a rapidly growing field within plastic surgery, and residents and fellows must receive appropriate training. However, there are no standardized surgical training curricula. The objective of this study was to identify core curricula within the field of GAS. METHODS: Four GAS surgeons from different academic institutions identified initial curricular statements within six categories: (1) comprehensive GAS care, (2) gender-affirming facial surgery, (3) masculinizing chest surgery, (4) feminizing breast augmentation, (5) masculinizing genital GAS, and (6) feminizing genital GAS. Expert panelists consisting of plastic surgery residency program directors and GAS surgeons were recruited for three rounds of the Delphi-consensus process. The panelists decided whether each curriculum statement was appropriate for residency, fellowship, or neither. A statement was included in the final curriculum when Cronbach α value was greater than or equal to 0.8, meaning that 80% or more of the panel agreed on inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 34 panelists (14 plastic surgery residency program directors and 20 GAS surgeons representing 28 US institutions) participated. The response rate was 85% for the first round, 94% for the second, and 100% for the third. Out of 124 initial curriculum statements, 84 reached consensus for the final GAS curricula, 51 for residency, and 31 for fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: A national consensus on core GAS curriculum for plastic surgery residency and GAS fellowship was achieved by a modified Delphi method. Implementation of this curriculum will ensure that trainees in plastic surgery are adequately prepared in the field of GAS.

Partial Flap Loss in Gender Affirming Phalloplasty.

BACKGROUND: Flaps used in phalloplasty are larger than described for other indications, with a design that is tubularized up to two times. While the incidence of partial flap loss (PFL) is well described, current literature lacks granularity comparing donor sites and techniques with minimal discussion of etiology and management. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with PFL in phalloplasty. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent phalloplasty by a single surgeon at a single institution between 2016 and 2020. PFL was defined as any patient requiring sharp excision of necrotic tissue and reconstruction. Patient variables (demographics, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, comorbidities), flap variables (donor site, design, dimensions, perforator number) and intraoperative variables (use of vasopressors, intraoperative fluid volume) were collected. RESULTS: Of 76 phalloplasties, 6 patients suffered PFL (7.9%). 5/6 patients were radial forearm free flap tube-within-tube (TWT) and 1/5 patients were pedicled anterolateral thigh TWT. 4/6 cases involved the shaft only and were treated with excision ± Integra and full-thickness skin grafting. 2 cases of PFL involved the urethral extension requiring excision of the necrotic segment. CONCLUSION: PFL occurred in 7.9% of cases and was solely found in the TWT cohort. The majority of cases involved the shaft, sparing the urethral segment. Cases in the acute postoperative period appeared to be related to macrovascular venous congestion, while cases in the subacute period appeared to be due to microvascular arterial ischemia.

Guiding the conversation-types of regret after gender-affirming surgery and their associated etiologies.

BACKGROUND: A rare, but consequential, risk of gender affirming surgery (GAS) is post-operative regret resulting in a request for surgical reversal. Studies on regret and surgical reversal are scarce, and there is no standard terminology regarding either etiology and/or classification of the various forms of regret. This study includes a survey of surgeons' experience with patient regret and requests for reversal surgery, a literature review on the topic of regret, and expert, consensus opinion designed to establish a classification system for the etiology and types of regret experienced by some patients. METHODS: This anonymous survey was sent to the 154 surgeons who registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference and the 2017 USPATH conference. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A MeSH search of the gender-affirming outcomes literature was performed on PubMed for relevant studies pertaining to regret. Original research and review studies that were thought to discuss regret were included for full text review. RESULTS: The literature is inconsistent regarding etiology and classification of regret following GAS. Of the 154 surgeons queried, 30% responded to our survey. Cumulatively, these respondents treated between 18,125 and 27,325 individuals. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons encountered at least one patient who expressed regret, with a total of 62 patients expressing regret (0.2-0.3%). Etiologies of regret were varied and classified as either: (I) true gender-related regret (42%), (II) social regret (37%), and (III) medical regret (8%). The surgeons' experience with patient regret and request for reversal was consistent with the existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature. Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic.

Masculinizing Genital Surgery: An Imaging Primer for the Radiologist.

OBJECTIVE. Masculinizing genital surgeries for transgender individuals are currently performed at only a select few centers; however, radiologists in any geographic region may be confronted with imaging studies of transgender patients. The imaging findings of internal and external genital anatomy of a transgender patient may differ substantially from the imaging findings of a cisgender patient. This article provides the surgical and anatomic basis to allow appropriate interpretation of preoperative and postoperative imaging findings. We also expand on the most common complications and associated imaging findings. CONCLUSION. As these procedures become more commonplace, radiologists will have a growing role in the care of transgender patients and will be faced with new anatomic variants and differential diagnoses. Familiarity with these anatomic variations and postoperative complications is crucial for the radiologist to provide an accurate and useful report.

"Staging" in Phalloplasty.

The treatment of gender dysphoria related to genitourinary anatomy can be effectively treated with phalloplasty. A phalloplasty may include some or all of the following: penile shaft, glans, shaft urethra, perineal urethra, scrotoplasty, vaginectomy, testicular implants, and erectile devices. The literature does not currently support a gold standard for how best to stage these procedures. This article reviews current techniques for phalloplasty staging and proposes that a staged urethral reconstruction is a reliable technique that allows for potential complications to be managed individually, while minimizing the severity of complications and their impact on the outcome of the final reconstruction.

Phalloplasty: techniques and outcomes.

Phalloplasty is an exceptionally complicated reconstructive procedure that attempts to create a structure that is penis-like. As patient goals vary widely, it is helpful to think about phalloplasty as a modular set of procedures that can be combined, mixed and matched to meet the needs of each individual patient while also taking into account their anatomy. Each module-but particularly the shaft and penile urethra-can be performed using a variety of techniques. To date, there is no consensus among surgeons regarding the optimum staging of the reconstructive steps. Our primary goal is to outline the most frequently performed and reported options in phallic reconstruction and outline the various considerations that go into choosing a given sequence of procedures for the specific patient. The secondary goal of this article is to describe the complications common to each of those modules and how they interact when combined.

Providing Gender Confirmation Surgery at an Academic Medical Center: Analysis of Use, Insurance Payer, and Fiscal Impact.

BACKGROUND: Expansion of insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery (GCS) has led to a large demand for GCS in the US. We sought to determine the financial impact of providing comprehensive GCS services at an academic medical center. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of patients older than 18 years who presented for GCS between January 1, 2015 and July 31, 2018 at a single academic medical center. The use of GCS services and associated work relative value units is reported. Departmental and hospital-level operating (profit) margins are reported relative to other hospital services, as well as the payer mix. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients underwent 970 GCS procedures between January 2015 and July 2018. Mean (SD) age was 35.32 (12.84) years. Four hundred and ninety-three (60.3%) patients underwent a masculinizing procedure, and 325 (39.7%) had a feminizing procedure. The most commonly performed procedure was chest masculinization (n = 403). The GCS case volume grew to generate 23.8% (plastic surgery) and 17.8% (urology) of total annual departmental work relative value units, and was associated with positive operating margins after recouping new faculty hiring costs. There were positive operating margins for GCS procedures for the hospital system that compare favorably with other common procedures and admissions. Medicare and Medicaid remained the most common payer throughout the study period, but dropped from 70% in 2015 to 48% in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: We found that providing GCS at our academic medical center is profitable for both the surgical department and the hospital system. This suggests such a program can be a favorable addition to academic medical centers in the US.

The Role of Facial Gender Confirmation Surgery in the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria.

The population of transgender patients seeking gender confirmation surgery for gender dysphoria is increasing in the United States. Facial gender confirmation surgery (FGCS) is one of the treatment modalities patients require and is often a combination of soft tissue and cranio-maxilla-facial procedures. Despite evidence of the efficacy of FGCS, there remains some extant controversies to address, such as reimbursement for these procedures, categorization of aesthetic versus functional surgery, and evaluation of outcomes. This review provides a discussion of these topics, as well as the historical and psychosocial issues specific to transgender patients that surgeons should know when providing FGCS. We provide practice pearls for providing affirming transgender healthcare, illustrative patient clinical vignettes, and a discussion of the Standards of Care of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to help guide surgeons who are interested in providing FGCS to transgender patients.

Differences in Chest Measurements between the Cis-female and Trans-female Chest Exposed to Estrogen and Its Implications for Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Gender confirming primary breast augmentation is becoming more common. The purpose of this study was to compare the demographic and anatomical differences in cis-female and trans-female populations. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of trans-female patients and cis-female patients undergoing primary breast augmentation at a single institution. Analysis included patient demographics and preoperative chest measurements including sternal notch to nipple distance (SSN), breast width (BW), nipple to inframammary fold distance (N-IMF), and nipple to midline distance (N-M). Continuous variables were compared using independent t tests, and discrete variables were compared using Pearson's χ2 tests. RESULTS: Eighty-two trans-female and 188 cis-female patients undergoing primary breast augmentation were included. Trans-female patients were older (40.37 versus 34.07), more likely to have psychological comorbidities (50% versus 12.23%), and had a higher body mass index, 27.46 kg/m2 versus 22.88 kg/m2 (P = 1.91E-07), than cis-female patients. Cis-female patients most commonly had an ectomorph body habitus (52% versus 26%), whereas trans-female patients most commonly had an endomorph body habitus (40% versus 7%). Pseudoptosis or ptosis was more commonly seen in cis-female patients (P = 0.0056). There were significant differences in preoperative breast measurements including sternal notch to nipple distance, BW, and N-M between groups, but not in N-IMF. The ratio of BW/N-IMF was statistically significant (P = 2.65E-07 on right), indicating that the similarity in N-IMF distance did not adjust for the difference in BW. CONCLUSIONS: The trans-female and cis-female populations seeking primary breast augmentation have significant demographic and anatomical differences. This has implications for surgical decision-making and planning to optimize outcomes for trans-female patients.

Gender-confirming Rhinoplasty.

Most surgeons who are not routinely treating gender dysphoric patients are more likely to see an isolated rhinoplasty consultation rather than a request for full facial gender confirmation surgery (FGCS). Different from other aspects of FGCS, the surgical basis of rhinoplasty is almost the same as for the cisgender population. Despite technical overlap, the care for patients seeking rhinoplasty for the indication of gender dysphoria vastly differs from that for the cisgender population. This review includes comments on gender norms and outline considerations for the preoperative work-up and operative execution as well as a comprehensive literature review.