Combining total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with subcutaneous mastectomy in trans men: The effect on safety outcomes

Masculinizing and defeminizing gender-affirming surgery

Transmasculine transgender and gender-diverse individuals may request gender-affirming surgery, standalone or in addition to other interventions. The choices and preferred outcomes of surgery can be highly individual. Besides surgeons' technical skills and patient physique, professionals in this field should be able to cooperate with other disciplines and with patients. The most requested surgery is masculinizing chest surgery, aiming to create a masculine chest with minimal scarring. For genital surgery, metoidioplasty refers to the procedure where the hypertrophic clitoris is released and possibly a scrotum is created from local labia flaps, whereas phalloplasty refers to a procedure in which a neophallus is created from a flap. Possible other surgeries include hysterectomy/oophorectomy, colpectomy, and the implants of scrotal or erection prostheses. In order to guide patients and clinicians, standardized outcome measures as well as evidence-based decision aids have been developed. Such aids, in combination with collaborative medical and psychosocial care, may further leverage the long-term outcomes of these surgeries.

Can gender-affirming surgeries be safely combined? An NSQIP analysis of 30-day outcomes and case planning factors

As gender-affirming surgeries are being performed, new techniques have been developed to meet patient desires, including recent reports of several gender-affirming procedures being combined into a single operative encounter. Such a development may provide several advantages to both patients and providers. However, it is less clear whether combining these procedures affects patient safety and surgical case planning factors. To address this, we compared the complication rates and the length of hospital stay and operative time for standalone and combined gender-affirming procedures (e.g., hysterectomy and bilateral mastectomy, breast augmentation, and vaginoplasty) performed between 2005 and 2019 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. There were 1857 standalone mastectomies, 826 standalone hysterectomies, and 30 cases where they were combined. There were 379 vaginoplasties, 648 breast augmentations, and 31 cases where they were combined. There was no evidence of differences in overall health status between those undergoing combined and standalone procedures. Two-sample proportion testing did not find significant differences in any of the complications experienced between standalone and combined procedures. Similarly, two-sample t-tests did not find significant differences in the length of the hospital stays nor in the length of the operative encounter between standalone and combined masculinizing surgeries. Combining breast augmentation and vaginoplasty, however, saved an average of 97.86 min (p = .000) of operating time. These results suggest that combining gender-affirming procedures may be a safe and viable option for individuals who desire multiple gender-affirming procedures and may even be an advantageous option for patients and practitioners alike.

Combined Mastectomy and Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with Salpingo-Oophorectomy in Transgender Men: a Cohort Study

There are few data on complications with gender affirming surgery. The aim of this study was to assess peri- and postoperative complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy and mastectomy performed in a single sitting in transgender men. Assessment of intra- and postoperative complications in a series of 65 transgender men (mean age 27, range 18–47) undergoing concomitant mastectomy and laparoscopic hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy. Mean operating time was 292 ± 47 min. Thirty-four (52%) patients experienced complications: 28 (41%) DINDO grade I, 0 DINDO grade 2, 6 (11%) DINDO grade III. The six grade 3 complications consisted of 5 hematomas requiring evacuation after mastectomy and 2 vaginal tears requiring transvaginal repair. Three patients were readmitted within 30 days, all for postoperative bleeding/hematoma. In transgender men, performing laparoscopic hysterectomy and mastectomy at a single sitting has a modest rate of perioperative complications, and may improve resource utilization.

Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions

INTRODUCTION

Masculinizing genital gender affirmation surgery (MgGAS) has witnessed significant change in recent years. With the increasing number of patients seeking out GAS, optimization of techniques is mandated.

OBJECTIVES

To critically review the evolution of MgGAS, in a manner that encompasses the history and scope of the procedures, including phalloplasty with and without urethral lengthening, metoidioplasty with and without urethral lengthening, penile prosthesis placement, scrotoplasty, testicular prosthesis placement, vaginectomy, and hysterectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, using PubMed. For our search, we generated a comprehensive list of MgGAS, combined with synonyms for GAS to ensure that articles included transgender cohorts. We identified a total of 547 articles from the search terms. Of these articles, 144 abstracts were relevant. Among these abstracts, 108 manuscripts were reviewed in full of which 98 were acceptable for inclusion. We excluded non-English-language studies without translation and studies that did not describe primary gGAS (eg, revision surgeries).

RESULTS

The evolution of MgGAS encompasses mostly refinements of pre-existing procedures, rather than new techniques or "watershed" procedures. The literature is somewhat lacking in outcomes-reporting that identifies the specific anatomy and surgical technique(s) used during gGAS. Without clarity regarding anatomy and technique, it is not feasible to compare surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal MgGAS; thus, it is critical that the physician assist the patient in understanding the outcomes and potential morbidity of the procedures to make the most informed decision. We envision that the future of MgGAS will advance with refinement of surgical techniques that minimize complications, improvement of tissue therapeutic technologies, new surgical tools and prosthetics designed for gGAS, advances in aftercare, and an immense selection of surgical options. Walton A, Hellstrom WJG, Garcia M. Options for Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirming Surgery: A Critical Review of the Literature and Perspectives for Future Directions. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:605-618.

The uterus in transgender males

Transgender males experience a disharmony between their birth sex and their intimate sense of gender belonging. Gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery (GAS) are often inherently part of the gender-affirming process. In this context, we should ask whether it is better to keep or remove the uterus. Keeping the uterus and ovaries avoids a surgical procedure and a pubic scar that often results and preserves fertility and the possibility of carrying a baby. On the other hand, keeping the uterus is often psychologically unbearable for transgender males and the long-term effects of androgens on the uterus and ovaries remain uncertain. Conversely, hysterectomy and oophorectomy as part of the GAS process are part of gender reassignment. New mini-invasive surgery procedures for hysterectomies decrease the risks and limit the likelihood of scars to a minimum. In practice, the data suggest that very few transgender males carry a pregnancy and/or use their oocytes after gender-reaffirming treatment. Clinicians should counsel their transgender male patients on the definitive infertility consequences of hysterectomy and oophorectomy and discuss fertility preservation options before GAS. Individualized approaches must be preferred to systematic procedures regarding the personal decision to keep or not keep the uterus and ovaries.

Feasibility, Safety, and Satisfaction of Combined Hysterectomy with Bilateral Salpingo-Oophorectomy and Chest Surgery in Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Individuals

The demand for masculinizing breast surgery and hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (HBSO) from transmen has increased. With a multidisciplinary approach, these surgeries can be performed in a single session. The objective of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, and satisfaction of HBSO and chest surgery in transmen. A cohort of 142 subjects who underwent HBSO alone or combined with chest surgery at Sant’Orsola Hospital was analyzed. Intra and post operation events were evaluated. Subjective post-intervention satisfaction, acceptability, and impact of intervention were assessed via a semi-structured interview. Nineteen transmen underwent HBSO alone and 123 underwent combined surgery. HBSO was performed laparoscopically in 96.5% of transmen (137/142). As expected, length of hospital stay and blood loss were significantly higher in the combined surgery group. A total of 13 intra or post-operative complications occurred in the combined surgery group (10.5%) with thoracic hematoma being the most frequent complication (7.6%). Only one rare complication occurred in the HBSO group (omental herniation through a laparoscopic breach). The overall subjective satisfaction score was 9.9 out of 10 for both groups. Positive changes in all areas of life were reported, with no significant differences. We found that the combined surgery appears to be well tolerated, safe, and feasible in transmen and satisfaction with the combined procedure was high in all subjects.

Gender-affirmation surgery and bariatric surgery in transgender individuals in The Netherlands: Considerations, surgical techniques and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

The number of transgender individuals seeking medical and surgical care has increased over the last years. Within the transgender population overweight and obesity is more frequently observed when compared to the general population. Little is known on the prevalence of bariatric surgery in the transgender population and the effects on the surgical gender transition path of the individual transgender with overweight or obesity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All transgender individuals who underwent gender-affirming surgery (GAS) between 1980 and 2020 were retrospectively identified from our hospital registry. Those with a history of bariatric surgery were selected. A retrospective chart study was conducted, recording gender identity, bariatric surgery specifications, gender surgery specifications, complications, reoperations and clinical follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 15 transgender individuals (11 transgender men, 4 transgender women) who underwent bariatric surgery were identified. All individuals underwent bariatric surgery before any GAS procedure, except for one transgender man. At the first GAS procedure, all individuals experienced significant weight loss when compared to their weight at bariatric surgery (mean 13.1 ± 3.8 BMI points lost for transgender men, mean BMI points lost 14.3 ± 2.8 for transgender women, p < 0.01). Obesity was still frequently prevalent in transgender men after bariatric surgery. All included transgender men underwent mastectomy via the double incision with free nipple grafting technique. Only one transgender man underwent genital GAS. All transgender women underwent penile-inversion vaginoplasty, one in combination with prosthesis-based augmentation mammoplasty.

CONCLUSION

Surgical gender transition is possible after massive weight loss after bariatric surgery. Specific surgical subtechniques will be more prevalent in this population.