Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Database Analyzing Demographics, Trends, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Gender affirmation surgery is an exponentially growing field within plastic surgery. The aim of our study is to analyze demographics, procedure type, trends, and outcomes in the surgical management of gender identity disorder in the past few years. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons NSQIP database was queried for the years 2015 to 2019. International Classification of Diseases codes were used to identify all gender-affirming cases. Patients were categorized by procedure type using Current Procedural Terminology codes for feminizing/masculinizing top, bottom and head/neck procedures. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were analyzed using SPSS statistics software. A comparative analysis was performed among the procedure type. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2019, 4114 patients underwent a gender-affirming surgery (GAS) increasing the number of surgeries by over 400%, according to the NSQIP database. Demographics include age (mean = 32 years), body mass index (mean = 28 kg/m2), race (60% White, 22% unknown, 13% African American, 4% Asian, 1% other). Female to male procedures represented the most commonly performed (n = 2647; 64%), followed by male to female (n = 1278; 31%) with head/neck procedures representing 5% (n = 189) of all procedures. Top surgeries were also the most common (n = 2347, 57%), followed by bottom surgeries (n = 1578, 38%). The overall complication rate was 6% (n = 247), 2.1% (n = 4) for head/neck procedures, 8% (n = 134) for bottom procedures, and 3.5% (n = 84) for top surgeries.A reoperation within 30 days and related to the initial GAS occurred for 52 patients. Postoperative complication rates were statistically different between bottom surgeries compared with the top and head/neck procedure groups (P < 0.001). Increasing age and body mass index showed a significantly higher odds of having a complication. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-affirming procedures have significantly increased over the past 5 years. Increased exposure through literature and research, as well as an improvement in social climates, including increasing insurance coverage have contributed to the expansion of these procedures. Low serious complication rates within 30 days prove GAS to be safe.

Unsupervised Clustering of Olfactory Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical classifications of olfactory function are based primarily upon a percentage of correct answers in olfactory identification testing. This simple classification provides little insight into etiologies of olfactory loss, associated comorbidities, or impact on the quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Community-based subjects underwent olfactory psychophysical testing using Sniffin Sticks to measure threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I). The cognitive screening was performed using Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE). Unsupervised clustering was performed based upon T, D, I, and MMSE. Post hoc differences in demographics, comorbidities, and QOL measures were assessed. RESULTS: Clustering of 219 subjects, mean age 51 years (range 20-93 years) resulted in 4 unique clusters. Cluster 1 was the largest and predominantly younger normosmics. Cluster 2 had the worst olfaction with impairment in nearly all aspects of olfaction and decreased MMSE scores. This cluster had higher rates of smoking, heart disease, and cancer and had the worst olfactory-specific QOL. Cluster 3 had normal MMSE with relative preservation of D and I, but severely impaired T. This cluster had higher rates of smoking and heart disease with moderately impaired QOL. Cluster 4 was notable for the worst MMSE scores, but general preservation of D and I with moderate loss of T. This cluster had higher rates of Black subjects, diabetes, and viral/traumatic olfactory loss. CONCLUSION: Unsupervised clustering based upon detailed olfactory testing and cognitive testing results in clinical phenotypes with unique risk factors and QOL impacts. These clusters may provide additional information regarding etiologies and subsequent therapies to treat olfactory loss.