Systematic Review of Neovaginal Prolapse After Vaginoplasty in Trans Women

Abstract

Background and objective: Most trans women are requesting a gender affirming genital surgery by vulvovaginoplasty. However, long-term complications such as genital prolapse are unknown. Through this systematic review, our objective was to provide an overview of the published outcomes related to genital prolapse after vaginoplasty in male-to-female transgender individuals, including prevalence, identified risk factors, and treatment.

Methods: We included all studies reporting genital prolapse rates following vulvovaginoplasty from 1995 to the present. Only studies that focused on the transgender population were included. The primary outcome was the genital prolapse rate. The secondary outcomes included risk factors and treatment of genital prolapse after vulvovaginoplasty. Article selection was performed by two independent reviewers.

Key findings and limitations: Twenty-four studies, involving 3166 patients, that presented sufficient data were analyzed. The mean age at the time of vulvovaginoplasty was 37.7 yr. The mean follow-up time was 22.5 mo. Most of the studies were retrospective case series of low to intermediate quality. The penile skin inversion technique was the most frequently employed method (in 85% of the 3166 patients). The prevalence of prolapse ranged from 0% to 7% with the penile skin inversion technique and from 1.6% to 22.7% with intestinal vaginoplasty. Upon consolidating the results, an overall rate of 2.7% was observed. Specifically, the prolapse rate within the penile inversion technique subgroup was 2.5%, while the rate for the intestinal-derived neovagina subgroup was 3.5%. The only significant risk factor identified was a high body mass index at the time of surgery. The most employed intraoperative technique to prevent neovaginal prolapse involves fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, coupled with systematic vaginal packing. Few case reports addressed the surgical treatment of neovaginal prolapse, predominantly using open abdominal or laparoscopic approaches. None of these considered transvaginal or perineal approaches. No recommendation exists about the use of vaginal prosthesis.

Conclusions and clinical implications: Neovaginal prolapse in male-to-female transgender patients remains a rare complication, but its significance is growing as the transgender population ages. Scarce information is available regarding preventative techniques and treatments, necessitating further exploration, hampered by its infrequent occurrence.

Patient summary: Neovaginal prolapse in male-to-female transgender patients is a rare complication, with the only recognized risk factor being a high body mass index. However, its importance is growing with the aging of the transgender population. Long-term complications, preventive techniques, and management of these prolapses need to be explored through further research.

Keywords: Complications; Male to female; Neovaginal; Outcomes; Prolapse; Transgender women; Vaginoplasty.

Fig. 1

(A) Penile skin inversion vaginoplasty diagram. (B) sigmoid colon–derived vaginoplasty diagram. 1 = penis; 2 = urethra; 3 = scrotal skin; 4 = Sigmoid colon; 1* = clitoris; 3* = vagina (with penile and scrotal skin); 4* = vagina (with sigmoid).

Fig. 2

Illustration of a sigmoid neovaginal prolapse.

Fig. 3

PRISMA flow chart of the selection process. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

Fig. 4

Prolapse rate forest plot. CI = confidence interval.

Fig. 5

T2-weighted MR Image of neovagina and cystocele. MR = magnetic resonance.