Defining Preferred Esthetics of the Ideal Phallus via Crowdsource Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe phalloplasty subunits and determine the preferred crowdsourced esthetics. Esthetic ideals are often used to guide reconstruction, and there has been an increase in the number of gender-affirming surgeries and reconstructive phalloplasties performed. However, there is a paucity of literature describing ideal phalloplasty esthetics. METHODS: Phallus esthetic subunits were defined, and a split testing-based survey was used. Subjects were solicited via Craigslist, Amazon Mechanical Turk, and Reddit and distributed among health care co-workers. Computer-generated images with variable ratios of glans, corona, and shaft were provided and respondents were asked to select the most esthetically pleasing photo. Demographic information was gathered. Univariate and multivariate regression were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1029 people responded to the survey request and 909 people (88.3%) completed the entire survey. There were 440 respondents who self-identified as male, 334 female, 92 transgender male, and 25 transgender female. The health care field was the profession for 55.4%. Health care providers had 65.3% higher odds of preferring the longer shaft length-to-width ratio, 30.3% less odds of preferring a bilateral taper of the glans, and 48.4% less odds of preferring an angulated shaft compared to non-health care providers (P = .006, P = .021, P <.001, respectively). When compared to males, transgender females were more than 13 times likely to prefer an angulated glans corona junction (P = .008). CONCLUSION: The ideal phallic esthetic varies by individual, and there were statistically significant preferences across age, education, health care status, gender, and sexual orientation. This study can serve as a guide on phalloplasties for patients and gender-affirming surgeons.

Transgender women's perspectives on mental health care related to vaginoplasty for gender affirmation.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to describe patient experiences and attitudes about the role of the mental health professional as it relates to pursuing gender affirmation surgery. METHODS: This was a mixed-models study with semi-structured interviews. Participants who presented for gender affirming vaginoplasty and had completed pre-surgical requirements but had not yet had the procedure were invited to participate in the study. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted from November 2019 and December 2020 until saturation of themes was achieved at a sample size of 14. Interviews were then transcribed verbatim and coded by theme. Qualitative analysis was performed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Almost half of the patients did not identify any barriers to obtaining mental health care, but a majority brought up concerns for less advantaged peers, with less access to resources. Some patients also felt that there was benefit to be obtained from the mental health care required before going through with surgery, while others felt the requirements were discriminatory. Finally, a large proportion of our participants reported concerns with the role of mental health care and the requirements set forth by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and patients gave suggestions for future improvements including decreasing barriers to care while rethinking how guidelines impact patients. CONCLUSION: There are many competing goals to balance when it comes to the guidelines for gender affirmation surgery, and patients had differing and complex relationships with mental health care and the pre-surgical process.

Gynecologic Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse People.

The visibility and care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people is an important component of gynecology. Transmasculine individuals require routine gynecologic and preventative care. Guidelines can be extrapolated from the cisgender female population, and using affirming language, acknowledging the challenges patients face with pelvic examination, and discussing individual gynecologic needs are important components of care. Transmasculine patients may seek hysterectomy for gender affirmation from gynecologists. Unique nuances exist in the considerations needed when preparing for hysterectomy, and patients should be thoroughly counseled with regard to concurrent vaginectomy or oophorectomy or both. Transfeminine patients often seek gynecologic care after gender-affirming surgery, and, unlike transmasculine patients, the gynecology visit is often very affirming and welcomed by patients. Becoming familiar with the perioperative and delayed postoperative care needs of transfeminine patients undergoing vaginoplasty can help improve the care provided by gynecologists. In general, prospective data on the outcomes of gender-affirming care in large cohorts of TGD patients are limited, but the body of literature is growing. Gynecologists remain central to the care of TGD patients, the academic advancement of the field of transgender health, and the advocacy needed to support this vulnerable patient population.

Masculinizing chest-wall surgeries in transgender patients, a retrospective single-center study.

INTRODUCTION: Masculinizing chest-wall contouring surgery is an important surgical intervention for most transmasculine patients; a vast improvement in quality of life for this group of patients has been documented as a result of receiving surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of such surgeries performed at our university hospital between 2008 and 2020, as well as the current quality of life of the patients. METHODS: All 16 patients operated between 2008 and 2020 were sent a questionnaire consisting of both BREAST-Q and BODY-Q modules, considered fitting for our study purposes, as well as the BECK Depression Index and a short two-question form with space for feedback. Patients were divided into groups called double incision (DI) and periareolar (PA) depending on the surgical technique used. RESULTS: We found an overall complication percentage of 31.3%, with the DI group scoring 33.3% and PA 28.6%, while secondary aesthetic corrections were necessary for 50% of all patients. The questionnaires yielded 6 responses (37.5%). Participants rated on a scale of 1 to 10 their willingness to undergo the operation again if given the choice; the DI group averaged 10/10, and the PA group 9/10, despite the statistically significant complication and correction rates. CONCLUSIONS: Masculinizing chest-wall contouring surgery has significant complication risks. In our study, frequency of complications did not appear to depend on the surgical technique used. Additionally, the complication rates found in our low volume centre seem to be comparable with those reported from bigger units.

Facial Masculinization Surgery: An Analysis of Interest Trends Using Search Term Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Facial masculinization surgery (FMS) is increasingly popular among cisgender and transgender men. The benefits of FMS are focused on facial identity and have been proven to decrease gender dysphoria in this population. Previous research showed increasing interest in gender affirmation surgery and facial feminization surgery, but the prevalence of FMS has not been explored. It is difficult to find these data based on surgical records alone because institutions do not have standardized methods of reporting and lack publications in the field. Our study aimed to analyze public interest in FMS by using worldwide Google Trends to quantify these trends. METHODS: A worldwide Google Trends search was completed from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2022, for terms focused on FMS. Then, search terms were analyzed for nonfacial masculinization procedures and were aggregated. Lastly, a PubMed search was conducted for the terms "transgender" and "facial masculinization" from January 1, 2008, to December 31 st , 2022, to compare publication rates. RESULTS: Our data showed an increasing interest in FMS through Google search trends since the year 2008. A similar trend was demonstrated for non-FMS gender-affirming terms. PubMed analysis showed "transgender" medicine publishing rates were approximately 39.65 times greater than "facial masculinization" publishing rates, although "facial masculinization" medicine did produce a positive trend over the study period of approximately 4 publications per year. The medical literature on transgender surgeries rapidly outpaces publications specifically focusing on FMS. CONCLUSION: Our study showed increasing interest in gender affirmation surgery over time, particularly FMS. These increasing trends should encourage greater scientific exploration of FMS and research to properly quantify and assess surgical outcomes in this special population. Additional educational interventions for both the general public and medical providers, to increase awareness of unique challenges that impact this community and highlight changes in health care coverage over time, should be created to keep pace with increasing patient demand and address the physical, systemic, and psychosocial issues faced by people who identify as transgender.

Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy for Transgender Patients: Preoperative and Intraoperative Considerations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the preoperative and intraoperative considerations for gynecologic surgeons when performing hysterectomy with or without oophorectomy for transgender patients. DESIGN: Stepwise demonstration of techniques with narrated video footage. SETTING: Approximately 0.3% of hysterectomies performed annually in the United States are for transgender men. While some transgender men choose hysterectomy for the same indications as cisgender women, the most prevalent diagnosis for the performed surgeries is gender dysphoria [1]. Hysterectomy with or without oophorectomy can be offered to patients who meet the World Professional Association for Transgender Health criteria [2]. INTERVENTIONS: Important perioperative counseling points for transgender patients include establishing the terminology for the relevant anatomy as well as the patient's name and pronouns; if applicable, discussing options for fertility preservation if the patient desires biological children [3,4] and discussing the use of hormone therapy post oophorectomy to reduce the loss of bone density [5,6]; and reviewing intraoperative and postoperative expectations. When performing an oophorectomy on a transgender patient for gender affirmation, it is especially important to minimize the risk of ovarian remnant syndrome and the need for additional surgery, as, for example, caused by persistent menstruation. A 2-layer vaginal cuff closure should be considered to reduce the risk of vaginal cuff complications and is preferable for patients whose pelvic organs cause gender dysphoria [7,8]. CONCLUSION: Special considerations outlined in this video and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines should be reviewed by gynecologic surgeons to minimize the transgender patient's experiences of gender dysphoria before, during, and after surgery.

Facial Feminization: Perioperative Care and Surgical Approaches.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the regional anatomy involved in facial feminization surgery, the key differences between the male and female face, and surgical approaches for modification. 2. Appreciate the integration of preoperative virtual planning and nonoperative approaches for facial feminization care. 3. Understand the perioperative process and potential complications and sequela. 4. Understand the importance of transgender care acceptance as it pertains to clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: Facial feminization surgery (FFS) is composed of a broad spectrum of gender-affirming surgical procedures with the goal of modifying specific facial features to create a more feminine appearance. As FFS continues to evolve as a subspecialty of transgender care, it is important to consider the psychosocial evaluation, evolving aesthetic tastes, nonoperative facial feminization care, preoperative virtual planning, specialized instrumentation, and potential complications/sequelae when performing these procedures. Computed tomographic imaging and virtual preoperative planning may be used to assist the surgeon with morphologic typing of the brow, supraorbital rim, chin, and lateral mandible regions and aid in performing safer, more efficient procedures. The increasing number of FFS procedures performed on transwomen annually has been supported by objective outcome studies that demonstrate progress in minimizing both misgendering in social environments and reducing dysphoric feelings.

Geographic Variability of Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery Centers and Costs of Hospitalization.

PURPOSE: The cost of gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is an important component of healthcare accessibility for transgender patients. However, GAS is often prohibitively expensive, particularly as there are inconsistencies in insurance coverages. Variability in hospital costs has been documented for other types of nonplastic surgery procedures; however, this analysis has not been done for GAS. To better understand the financial barriers impairing access to equitable transgender care, this study analyzes the distribution of hospitals that perform genital GAS and the associated costs of inpatient genital GAS. METHODS: This is a study of the 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample database. Transgender patients undergoing genital GAS were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, diagnosis and procedure codes, and patients undergoing concurrent chest wall GAS were excluded. Descriptive statistics were done on patient sociodemographic variables, hospital characteristics, and hospitalization costs. χ2 test was used to assess for differences between categorical variables and Mood's median test was used to assess for differences between continuous variable medians. RESULTS: A total of 3590 weighted genital GAS encounters were identified. The Western region (50.8%) and Northeast (32.3%) performed the greatest proportion of GAS, compared with the Midwest (9.1%) and the South (8.0%) (P < 0.0001). The most common payment source was private insurance (62.8%), followed by public insurance (27.3%). There were significant differences in the variability of median hospital costs across regions (P < 0.0001). The South and Midwest had the greatest median cost for vaginoplasty ($19,935; interquartile range [IQR], $16,162-$23,561; P = 0.0009), while the West had the greatest median cost for phalloplasty ($26,799; IQR, $19,667-$30,826; P = 0.0152). Across both procedures, the Northeast had the lowest median cost ($11,421; IQR, $9155-$13,165 and $10,055; IQR, $9,013-$10,377, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant regional variability in the number of GAS procedures performed and their associated hospitalization costs. The identified disparities in insurance coverage present an area of possible future improvement to alleviate the financial burden GAS presents to gender-discordant individuals. The variability in cost suggests a need to evaluate variations in care, leading to cost standardization.

Postoperative Regret Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Recipients of Gender-Affirming Surgery.

This Viewpoint examines prevalence of and factors associated with surgical regret among transgender and gender-diverse individuals who undergo gender-affirming surgery.

Is size in the eye of the beholder? Visual estimation of penis size among transgender and cisgender people and implications for genital gender-affirming surgery and sexual medicine.

BACKGROUND: Transgender men (TM) seeking gender-affirming phalloplasty and transgender women (TW) seeking vaginoplasty and desiring insertive intercourse must consider penis size. Evidence has shown that, at least among cisgender men (CM), penile dimensions tend to be poorly estimated. In transgender patients desiring gender-affirming surgery, inaccuracy in estimation of penis dimensions may lead to unnecessary morbidity: for TW, trauma to the neovagina; for TM with excess girth, an inability to insert. Studies on the accuracy with which transgender and cisgender patients estimate penis size are limited. AIM: To assess the degree of accuracy with which CM and CW, as well as TM and TW, visually estimate the size of the human penis, including length, width, and girth. METHODS: There were 142 participants included (25 TM, 47 TW, 30 CM, and 40 CW; net mean ± SD age, 36.6 ± 11.2 years). Participants were shown these models and asked to estimate length, width, and midshaft girth by visual inspection of 6 realistic models of a penis and scrotum of varying lengths and widths. We evaluated the accuracy of the visual measurements by comparing mean perceived dimensions with the actual dimensions of each model. OUTCOMES: We used a multivariate model of all 3 bias dimensions to test for differences in average bias among gender groups (CM, CW, TM, and TW). RESULTS: TM significantly overestimated length across the longest models. TW significantly overestimated length in the longer 3 models. All groups except for TM significantly underestimated girth in at least 1 model. No groups significantly underestimated width. CM, CW, and TM significantly overestimated width in all 6 models. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When transgender patients use numbers to express penis size (either in neophallus or vaginal depth based on perceived partner size), the result is likely to be larger than expected. Use of realistic penis models as a decision-making tool may help manage patient expectations and surgery decision making preoperatively and improve postoperative patient satisfaction and safety. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess visual estimation in penis size in TM and CM, as well as TW and CW. The penile models in our study were shown side by side and in the flaccid state despite having dimensions more consistent with an erect penis, which may have influenced estimations across all dimensions. CONCLUSION: Men and women (cisgender and transgender) tend to significantly overestimate penis length and width.

Facial Feminization Surgery: Anatomical Differences, Preoperative Planning, Techniques, and Ethical Considerations.

Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS) is a transformative surgical approach aimed at aligning the facial features of transgender women with their gender identity. Through a systematic analysis, this paper explores the clinical differences between male and female facial skeletons along with the craniofacial techniques employed in FFS for each region. The preoperative planning stage is highlighted, emphasizing the importance of virtual planning and AI morphing as valuable tools to be used to achieve surgical precision. Consideration is given to special circumstances, such as procedure sequencing for older patients and silicone removal. Clinical outcomes, through patient-reported outcome measures and AI-based gender-typing assessments, showcase the efficacy of FFS in achieving proper gender recognition and alleviating gender dysphoria. This comprehensive review not only offers valuable insights into the current state of knowledge regarding FFS but also emphasizes the potential of artificial intelligence in outcome evaluation and surgical planning to further advance patient care and satisfaction with FFS.

Technical and Clinical Differences Between Transgender and Cisgender Females Undergoing Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgery is a quickly expanding field. However, it is facing a shortage of specialized surgeons for a population exceeding 1.4 million individuals. Many studies comparing outcomes between cisgender and transgender patients fail to describe the technical differences of the operation. Breast augmentation in the transgender female patient involves important anatomical, technical, and clinical features that differ from the cisgender female. In this study, we aimed to describe and compare these characteristics between these 2 groups to better inform the new generation of gender-affirming surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent primary breast augmentation between 2009 and 2019 at a specialized tertiary center for transgender care was performed. Mastopexy, secondary augmentation, and reconstructive procedures were excluded. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected from medical records. All patients had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up after the initial surgery. Bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 250 cisgender females and 153 transgender females were included. The transgender group showed higher rates of smoking ( P < 0.0001), immunosuppression ( P < 0.0001), obesity ( P < 0.0001), mental health disorders ( P < 0.0001), and hypertension ( P = 0.002). Median base width ( P < 0.0001), sternal notch to nipple distance ( P < 0.0001), and implant size (500 mL [interquartile range, 425-600 mL] vs 350 mL [interquartile range, 325-385 mL]; P < 0.0001) were larger in transgender patients. Transgender patients also demonstrated a stronger correlation between implant size and body surface area ( r = 0.71, P < 0.0001). Readmission, reoperation, and complication rates were similar between the groups; however, transgender females had a higher incidence of surgical site infections (3.9% vs 0.4%, P < 0.013). Capsular contracture was the most common complication and indication for reoperation in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are important anatomical, clinical, and technical differences between reconstructive gender-affirming breast augmentation in transgender female patients and cosmetic breast augmentation in the cisgender female. The gender-affirming surgeon must know these differences to provide the best quality of care and help patients achieve better congruence between their gender identity and body image.

[Facial feminization, history, evolution of objectives]. / Féminisation faciale, historique, évolution des objectifs.

The author's experience dates from 1990, during the period when he was in charge of the feminization of the facial skeleton in order to improve the social integration of male transsexual patients. Very quickly, these techniques were extended to genetic women who wanted a more feminine face. This facial skeletal surgery was then supplemented with soft tissue surgery. This skeletal and volumetric surgery has become an important contribution in the search of facial rejuvenation and beauty.

Impact of surgical technique on outcome measures in chest masculinization: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Among plastic surgeons, there are several conventional techniques for performing chest surgery. Research on surgical approaches has focused cis-gender patients with medical conditions, such as breast cancer or gynecomastia, but has never studied transgender populations. The aim of this study is to perform the first systematic review of gender-affirming surgery (GAS) in transgender populations and determine postoperative outcomes differences in relation to surgical technique. METHODS: Two reviewers independently searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies published prior to 2021. Studies selected for inclusion were retrospective or prospective studies of adult transgender men undergoing GAS that utilized appropriate operative techniques and reported complications and/or patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 26 randomized controlled trials, including 40 distinct populations and 3055 patients, were identified. Surgical techniques compared double incision free nipple graft (DIFNG) (2053 patients [67.20%]), pedicled nipple techniques (PNT) (297 [9.72%]), and periareolar techniques (PAT) (705 [23.08%]). Pairwise analysis found the lowest complication rates associated with procedures utilizing DIFNG, followed by PNT, then PAT. Patients with PAT had significantly higher satisfaction scores than DIFNG. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to evaluate outcomes of chest surgery techniques among the transgender population. Results indicate significantly more complications for PAT compared to DIFNG or PNT. Analysis of patient-reported outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity in reporting.

Erectile device insertion following phalloplasty in transgender and non-binary individuals assigned female at birth: a narrative review.

Genital gender affirmation surgery (gGAS) for individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) is complex and requires the staged insertion of an erectile device to permit penetrative intercourse. This final stage of gGAS is challenging, owing to the variable anatomy and lack of supportive structures within the neophallus when compared with erectile device insertion for individuals assigned male at birth. There is a paucity in the literature at present regarding erectile device insertion in trans-sex AFAB patients. Hence, a narrative review following a literature review and supplemented by expert opinion from a high-volume centre of expertise is presented. The choices available for erectile device in this patient cohort are discussed. Principle surgical steps required for this complex surgery is outlined along with the recommended postoperative management of the patient. Postoperative outcomes and complications are also summarised in this fast-developing surgical procedure.

Gynecological concerns and vaginal practices and exposures among transfeminine individuals who have undergone vaginoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Vaginoplasty is a gender-affirming surgery that is medically necessary for some transfeminine individuals. Little research exists describing vaginal health after the initial recovery from surgery, and evidence-based guidelines for vaginal care practices are unavailable. AIM: The study sought to describe self-reported gynecological concerns and vaginal care practices among transfeminine persons who have undergone vaginoplasty. METHODS: A total of 60 transfeminine participants 18+ years of age, living in Canada, and who had undergone vaginoplasty at least 1 year prior were recruited through social media, community groups, healthcare provider referrals, and study recontact. Participants completed a cross-sectional, online questionnaire detailing demographics, gynecological concerns, and genital practices and exposures. Hierarchical clustering was used to group participants based on behavioral practices and exposures. Associations between clusters and gynecological concerns were assessed. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included self-reported gynecological concerns within the past year, recent vulvar or vaginal symptoms (past 30 days), and behavioral practices/exposures, including douching with varied products and dilating. RESULTS: Participants reported a variety of concerns in the past year, including urinary tract infection (13%) and internal hair regrowth (23%). More than half (57%) had experienced at least 1 recent vaginal symptom, most commonly malodor (27%) and vaginal bleeding (21%). Of participants, 48% were dilating weekly and 52% reported douching in the past 30 days. Four distinct clusters of vaginal practices/exposures were identified: limited exposures; dilating, no douching; dilating and douching; and diverse exposures. No significant associations between cluster membership and gynecological concerns were identified, though cluster membership was significantly associated with surgical center (P = .03). Open-text write-ins provided descriptions of symptoms and symptom management strategies. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results provide insight for clinicians on common patient-reported gynecological concerns and current vaginal care practices and exposures, including symptom management strategies. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This was the first study to investigate vaginal health and genital practices/exposures among a community sample of transfeminine individuals. As participants self-enrolled for a detailed survey and swab collection, individuals experiencing concerns were likely overrepresented. CONCLUSION: Transfeminine individuals reported a range of gynecological concerns outside of the surgical healing period. Genital practices/exposures varied across clusters, but no clear associations between clusters and symptoms were identified; instead, practice/exposure clusters were dependent on where the individual underwent vaginoplasty. There is a need for evidence to inform diagnostics, treatments, and vaginal care guidelines to support vaginal health.

Management of Urologic Complications After Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery in Transgender and Nonbinary Patients.

Transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) patients are a population with unique urologic needs that are often overlooked in urologic training. Most urology residents think that learning to take care of this population is important in their training; however, there is much variation in this educational content within urology residency programs. This review provides information on the current state of teaching regarding the unique needs of caring for TGNB patients as urologists and overviews some basic principles that every urologist should know.

[Genital gender affirming surgery in trans men]. / Chirurgie génitale de masculinisation des hommes trans.

OBJECTIVE: Genital surgery for masculinisation in the context of gender incongruence is characterised by the reconstruction of male genitalia using multiple surgical techniques - free flap phalloplasty, pedicled flap phalloplasty or metaoidioplasty - which this article aims to describe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A narrative review of the literature on these trans surgeries was carried out. RESULTS: Each technique has specific advantages and disadvantages, and does not produce the same results in terms of surgical risks, size of the reconstructed phallus, sensitivity, sexual function and urinary function. CONCLUSION: This surgical decision must therefore be shared with the person concerned, based on a clear understanding of their expectations and objectives. Long-term follow-up is recommended.