Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patient-centered Outcomes (Part 2: Genital Reconstruction)
- PMID: 34914663
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004717
Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patient-centered Outcomes (Part 2: Genital Reconstruction)
Abstract
Objective: To perform the first systematic review of all available GAS publications across all procedures to assess outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment.
Summary of background data: Assessment of GAS results is complex and multidimensional, involving not only complication rates but also anatomic (eg, vaginal depth), functional (eg, urinary), and psychosocial outcomes. A fully comprehensive aggregation of all prior research would offer an essential cornerstone for continued progress.
Methods: A systematic review was performed after PRISMA guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including patient-centered outcomes, complications, and functional outcomes. Data were aggregated to assess pooled rates of complications, satisfaction, and other outcomes.
Results: Overall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications, including 171 vaginoplasty, 82 phalloplasty, 16 metoidioplasty, 23 oophorectomy/vaginectomy, and 21 with multiple procedures.Although 68.7% of genitoplasty papers addressed patient-centered outcomes, only 1.0% used metrics validated in the transgender population. Forty-three different outcome instruments were used. No instrument was used in more than 15% of published series and 38 were used in only 1 or 2 publications.
Conclusions: Our review found high patient satisfaction for genital procedures but little concordance between study methods, with almost 90% of patient-focused outcome metrics appearing only once or twice. Standardization of outcome instruments and measurement methods through patient-inclusive, multidisciplinary consensus efforts is the essential next step for quality improvement. As GAS continues to mature, building on current foundations with the goal of improving both surgical and patient-reported outcomes is essential.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Coleman E, Bockting W, Botzer M, et al. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. Int J Transgenderism 2012; 13:165–232.
-
- Prunas A, Fisher AD, Bandini E, et al. Eudaimonic well-being in transsexual people, before and after gender confirming surgery. J Happiness Stud 2017; 18:1305–1317.
-
- Smith YLS, Van Goozen SHM, Kuiper AJ, et al. Sex reassignment: outcomes and predictors of treatment for adolescent and adult transsexuals. Psychol Med 2005; 35:89–99.
-
- van de Grift TC, Elaut E, Cerwenka SC, et al. Surgical satisfaction, quality of life, and their association after gender-affirming surgery: a follow-up study. J Sex Marital Ther 2018; 44:138–148.
-
- Wierckx K, Elaut E, Van Hoorde B, et al. Sexual desire in trans persons: associations with sex reassignment treatment. J Sex Med 2014; 11:107–118.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials