Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 1;147(4):634e-643e.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007779.

Vaginal Canal Reconstruction in Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty with Flaps, Peritoneum, or Skin Grafts: Where Is the Evidence?

Ara A Salibian  1 , Loren S Schechter  1 , William M Kuzon  1 , Mark-Bram Bouman  1 , Wouter B van der Sluis  1 , Lee C Zhao  1 , Rachel Bluebond-Langner  1
Affiliations

Vaginal Canal Reconstruction in Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty with Flaps, Peritoneum, or Skin Grafts: Where Is the Evidence?

Ara A Salibian et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. .

Abstract

Background: To optimize neovaginal dimensions, several modifications of the traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty are described. Options for neovaginal lining include skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneum. Implications of these techniques on outcomes remain limited.

Methods: A systematic review of recent literature was performed to assess evidence on various vaginal lining options as adjunct techniques in penile inversion vaginoplasty. Study characteristics, neovaginal depth, donor-site morbidity, lubrication, and complications were analyzed in conjunction with expert opinion.

Results: Eight case series and one cohort study representing 1622 patients used additional skin grafts when performing penile inversion vaginoplasty. Neovaginal stenosis ranged from 1.2 to 12 percent, and neovaginal necrosis ranged from 0 to 22.8 percent. Patient satisfaction with lubrication was low in select studies. Three studies used scrotal flaps to line the posterior vaginal canal. Average neovaginal depth was 12 cm in one study, and neovaginal stenosis ranged from 0 to 6.3 percent. In one study of 24 patients, urethral flaps were used to line the neovagina. Neovaginal depth was 11 cm and complication rates were comparable to other series. Two studies used robotically assisted peritoneal flaps with or without skin grafts in 49 patients. Average neovaginal depth was approximately 14 cm, and complication rates were low.

Conclusions: Skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneal flaps may be used to augment neovaginal canal dimensions with minimal donor-site morbidity. Further direct comparative data on complications, neovaginal depth, and lubrication are needed to assess indications in addition to advantages and disadvantages of the various lining options.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. De Cuypere G, T’Sjoen G, Beerten R, et al. Sexual and physical health after sex reassignment surgery. Arch Sex Behav. 2005;34:679–690.
    1. Weyers S, Elaut E, De Sutter P, et al. Long-term assessment of the physical, mental, and sexual health among transsexual women. J Sex Med. 2009;6:752–760.
    1. Hage JJ, Karim RB, Laub DR Sr. On the origin of pedicled skin inversion vaginoplasty: Life and work of Dr Georges Burou of Casablanca. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59:723–729.
    1. Gillies H, Millard DR. The Principles and Art of Plastic Surgery. 1957.Boston: Little, Brown;
    1. Horbach SE, Bouman MB, Smit JM, Özer M, Buncamper ME, Mullender MG. Outcome of vaginoplasty in male-to-female transgenders: A systematic review of surgical techniques. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1499–1512.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources