Facial Gender Surgery: Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Consensus Guidelines from the International Facial Gender Symposium.

BACKGROUND: Increasing societal acceptance of transgender people has led to broader availability of gender surgery and rapid growth in transition-related operations. Facial gender surgery aims to modify patients' facial features to be more congruent with their physical expression of gender, reducing gender dysphoria and improving quality of life. Growth in research and technique evolution has not kept pace with growth in clinical volume. Therefore, the first International Facial Gender Symposium was held at Johns Hopkins University in 2019, convening surgeons who perform facial gender surgery to share ideas and assess the state of clinical evidence. METHODS: To review the literature on facial gender surgery, the authors developed a search strategy for seven electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Gender Studies) through May of 2019, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the English language literature and clinical experience, the authors suggest guidelines for screening, management, and appropriate surgical technique for patients undergoing facial gender surgery. They highlight facial gender surgery as a medically necessary intervention and identify shortcomings in current guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Facial gender surgery represents a complex array of craniofacial and soft-tissue procedures that require application of advanced skills and decision-making. Facial gender operations are not cosmetic, are medically necessary, and require development of new CPT codes specific to facial gender surgery. It is imperative to create educational programs and methods to define sufficient training for facial gender surgery surgeons. Research priorities include better procedural outcomes data, more quality-of-life studies, and insight into variation in both patient and procedural subgroups.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons' Knowledge and Comfort of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: A Survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Isolated polyethylene exchange versus acetabular revision for polyethylene wear.

UNLABELLED: Polyethylene wear and osteolysis are not uncommon in THA mid- and long-term. In asymptomatic patients the dilemma faced by the orthopaedic surgeon is whether to revise the cup and risk damage to the supporting columns and even pelvic discontinuity or to perform isolated polyethylene exchange and risk a high rate of postoperative recurrent instability and dislocation that will necessitate further surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients (67 hips) who underwent revision arthroplasty for polywear and osteolysis. Thirty-six hips had isolated polyethylene exchange, while 31 had full acetabular revision. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 2.8 years; range, 2-5 years). Three of 36 hips with a retained cup grafted through the cup holes failed within 5 years due to acetabular loosening. One of 31 hips with full revision underwent re-revision for aseptic cup loosening at 5 months postoperatively. Although we do not recommend prophylactic revision of all cups for polywear and osteolysis, the patient may be warned of the possibility of an approximate 10% failure rate when retaining the acetabular component. We do, however, advocate cup extraction in the following situations: damage to the locking mechanism, erosion of the femoral head through the liner and into the cup damaging the metal, and a malpositioned component that may jeopardize the stability of the revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.