Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023
Urinary Reconstruction in Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery: Checking Our Surgical Complication Blind Spots.
ОбзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blasdel Gaines, Dy Geolani W, Nikolavsky Dmitriy, Ferrando Cecile A, Bluebond-Langner Rachel, Zhao Lee C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Urologic complications in genital gender-affirming surgery are imperfectly measured, with existing evidence limited by "blind spots" that will not be resolved through implementation of patient-reported outcomes alone. Some blind spots are expected in a surgical field with rapidly expanding techniques, and they may be exacerbated by factors related to transgender health.
METHODS: The authors provide a narrative review of systematic reviews published in the past decade to describe the current options for genital gender-affirming surgery and surgeon-reported complications, as well as contrasting peer-reviewed sources with data not reported by the primary surgeon. In combination with expert opinion, these findings help estimate complication rates.
RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews describe complications in patients undergoing vaginoplasty, including 5% to 16.3% mean incidence of meatal stenosis and 7% to 14.3% mean incidence of vaginal stenosis. Compared with surgeon-reported cohorts, patients undergoing vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty in other reports had higher rates of voiding dysfunction (47% to 66% versus 5.6% to 33%), incontinence (23% to 33% versus 4% to 19.3%), or misdirected urinary stream (33% to 55% versus 9.5% to 33%). Outcomes in six reviews of phalloplasty and metoidioplasty included urinary fistula (14% to 25%), urethral stricture or meatal stenosis (8% to 12.2%), and ability to stand to void (73% to 99%). Higher rates of fistula (39.5% to 56.4%) and stricture (31.8% to 65.5%) were observed in alternate cohorts, along with previously unreported complications such as vaginal remnant requiring reoperation.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature does not completely describe urologic complications of genital gender-affirming surgery. In addition to standardized, robustly validated patient-reported outcome measures, future research on surgeon-reported complications would benefit from using the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study) framework for surgical innovation.
METHODS: The authors provide a narrative review of systematic reviews published in the past decade to describe the current options for genital gender-affirming surgery and surgeon-reported complications, as well as contrasting peer-reviewed sources with data not reported by the primary surgeon. In combination with expert opinion, these findings help estimate complication rates.
RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews describe complications in patients undergoing vaginoplasty, including 5% to 16.3% mean incidence of meatal stenosis and 7% to 14.3% mean incidence of vaginal stenosis. Compared with surgeon-reported cohorts, patients undergoing vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty in other reports had higher rates of voiding dysfunction (47% to 66% versus 5.6% to 33%), incontinence (23% to 33% versus 4% to 19.3%), or misdirected urinary stream (33% to 55% versus 9.5% to 33%). Outcomes in six reviews of phalloplasty and metoidioplasty included urinary fistula (14% to 25%), urethral stricture or meatal stenosis (8% to 12.2%), and ability to stand to void (73% to 99%). Higher rates of fistula (39.5% to 56.4%) and stricture (31.8% to 65.5%) were observed in alternate cohorts, along with previously unreported complications such as vaginal remnant requiring reoperation.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature does not completely describe urologic complications of genital gender-affirming surgery. In addition to standardized, robustly validated patient-reported outcome measures, future research on surgeon-reported complications would benefit from using the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study) framework for surgical innovation.