Complications After Orchiectomy and Vaginoplasty for Gender Affirmation: An Analysis of Concurrent Versus Separate Procedures Using a National Database.

IMPORTANCE: Gender-affirming orchiectomy may be performed in isolation, as a bridge to vaginoplasty, or concurrently with vaginoplasty for transgender and nonbinary persons, although there is a paucity of data on immediate postoperative outcomes on the various procedural approaches. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare 30-day surgical outcomes after gender-affirming orchiectomy and vaginoplasty as separate and isolated procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare surgical outcomes of orchiectomy alone and vaginoplasty alone to concurrent orchiectomy with vaginoplasty using bivariate and adjusted multivariable regression statistics. RESULTS: Concurrent orchiectomy and vaginoplasty were associated with greater 30-day surgical complications compared with orchiectomy alone (15.4% vs 2.9%, P < 0.01) and similar odds of 30-day surgical complications compared with vaginoplasty alone (15.4% vs 11.1%, P = 0.15). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, compared with orchiectomy alone, concurrent orchiectomy and vaginoplasty were associated with higher increased odds of 30-day surgical complications (adjusted odds ratio, 6.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-14.86) as well as vaginoplasty alone (adjusted odds ratio 4.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-10.00). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the perioperative outcomes for isolated versus concurrent gender-affirming orchiectomy and vaginoplasty, demonstrating lower morbidity for orchiectomy alone and similar morbidity for vaginoplasty alone when compared with concurrent procedures. These data will aid health care providers in preoperative counseling and surgical planning for gender-affirming genital surgery, particularly for patients considering concurrent versus staged orchiectomy and vaginoplasty.

Outcomes After Lysis of Adhesions and Dilator Placement for Treatment of Vulvovaginal Agglutination Due to Lichen Planus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to determine intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes for the treatment of vulvovaginal agglutination secondary to lichen planus (LP) following a standard protocol using intraoperative dilator placement and postoperative intravaginal steroid use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent surgical management of vulvovaginal agglutination due to LP following a protocol that included surgical lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions, intraoperative dilator placement and removal 48 hours later, and high-potency intravaginal corticosteroid and regular dilator use thereafter. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the medical record and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients, with mean age 51.2 ± 11 years and body mass index 32.8 ± 8.5 kg/m 2 , underwent lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions between 1999 and 2021 with 8 different surgeons at a single institution. The mean preoperative, immediate postoperative, and 6-week postoperative vaginal lengths were 2.8 ± 1.8 cm ( n = 18), 8.0 ± 1.9 cm ( n = 21), and 7.9 ± 2.2 cm ( n = 16), respectively. The mean estimated blood loss intraoperatively was 16 ± 15 mL. No patients had a documented surgical site infection or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Of patients who had it documented ( n = 26), 70% (18/26) reported postoperative sexual activity. Where documented, 100% (18/18) reported preoperative dyspareunia, while 17% (3/18) did postoperatively. Six percent (2/34) had recurrent severe agglutination and 3% (1/34) underwent reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Lysis of vulvovaginal adhesions, intraoperative dilator placement, and postoperative intravaginal corticosteroids with dilator use is a safe and effective treatment option to restore vaginal length for those with vulvovaginal LP.

Variation in the interpretation and application of the Medicaid sterilization consent form among Medicaid officials.

OBJECTIVE: The Medicaid consent policy has been identified as a major barrier to desired permanent contraception, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. As each state may modify their state Medicaid sterilization consent form, variation in the form has been reported. This study aims to characterize state-level variation in Medicaid Title XIX consent form interpretation and application. STUDY DESIGN: We aimed to collect primary data from Medicaid officials in all 50 United States from January to May 2020 via a 25-question electronic survey regarding state-level consent form implementation. Questions targeted consent form details and definitions, insurance and billing, clinician correspondence, and administrative processes. We used Qualtrics XM to collect survey responses. We performed descriptive statistics on the survey responses. There were no exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We had 41 responses from 36/50 states (72% participation rate). Heterogeneity existed in the key definitions of "Premature Delivery" and "Emergency Abdominal Surgery." One in five respondents reported the consent form was only available in English. Variation among Current Procedural Terminology codes covered in each state's sterilization policy were noted. Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know how Medicaid informed healthcare providers of consent form denials. Most participants (90%) were unaware of differences between state sterilization policies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates variation in terms of consent form definitions, procedures covered, correspondence with clinicians, and administrative review processes among state Medicaid offices regarding the sterilization consent form. Greater transparency is necessary in order to reduce administrative barriers to desired permanent contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Inconsistent interpretation poses an administrative barrier to care, raises concern regarding appropriate clinician reimbursement, and can potentially lead to unnecessarily denying patients the contraceptive option of their choice. Permanent contraception policies should be equitable no matter insurance status, preserve reproductive autonomy and effectively protect vulnerable populations.