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.

Impact of spinal needle type on postdural puncture headache among women undergoing Cesarean section surgery under spinal anesthesia: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal anesthesia is the most frequently performed anesthesia for cesarean section. The American Society of Anesthesiology recommends using pencil-point spinal needles (SNs) over cutting-bevel SNs to reduce postdural puncture headache (PDPH) in their practice guidelines for obstetric anesthesia. However, there is no meta-analysis addressing the impact of the type of SNs on PDPH among women undergoing Cesarean section surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials comparing the incidence of PDPH of pencil-point SNs with cutting-bevel SNs in patients undergoing Cesarean section with spinal anesthesia. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL without using any language and time restrictions were performed. RESULTS: A total of 4936 patients from 20 studies (31 comparisons) were included. Pencil-point SN leads to reduced PDPH (risk ratio [RR] 0.33, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.25 to 0.45) and reduced requirement of epidural blood patch (RR = 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.51) compared to cutting-bevel SN. The incidence of anesthesia failure, non-PDPH, backache, and other adverse effects was not statistically significantly difference between the two SNs. Overall quality of evidence was moderate to low. CONCLUSIONS: Using pencil-point SN appears to be beneficial for preventing PDPH in patients undergoing Cesarean section without increasing any potential adverse effects. Further research addressing the specific gauge of pencil-point SNs, which might further reduce the incidence of PDPH is highly desired.