A comparative analysis of peritoneal flap and intestinal vaginoplasty for management of vaginal stenosis.

BACKGROUND

In transgender or non-binary patients (TGNB) with failed penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV), peritoneal flap vaginoplasty (PFV) and intestinal segment vaginoplasty (ISV) facilitate restoration of neovaginal depth and sexual function. This study compared the outcomes of revision PFV and ISV in TGNB patients with failed PIV.

METHODS

TGNB patients who underwent secondary PFV or ISV from December 2018 to April 2023 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one (5.8%) patients underwent secondary PFV and 24 (6.6%) underwent secondary ISV, due to vaginal stenosis (n = 45, 100.0%). Mean duration to first successful dilation and average vaginal depth were comparable between the groups. Seven (33.3%) PFV patients experienced short-term complications, including introital dehiscence (n = 2, 9.5%), vaginal stenosis (n = 2, 9.5%), vaginal bleeding (n = 2, 9.5%), and reoperation (n = 2, 9.5%). Nine (42.9%) experienced long-term complications, including urethrovaginal fistula formation (n = 2, 9.5%), hypergranulation (n = 2, 9.5%), vaginal stenosis (n = 7, 33.3%), and reoperation (n = 6, 28.6%). Ten (41.7%) ISV patients experienced short-term complications, including dehiscence (n = 4, 19.0%), ileus (n = 2, 8.3%), introital stenosis (n = 2, 9.5%), and reoperation due to vaginal bleeding (n = 2, 8.3%). Six (25.0%) experienced long-term complications, including introital stenosis (n = 3, 12.5%), mucosal prolapse (n = 2, 8.3%), and reoperation due to mucosal prolapse (n = 4, 16.7%). Secondary PFV had a higher rate of vaginal stenosis (p = 0.003). There were no cases of partial or full-thickness flap necrosis.

CONCLUSION

Revision PFV and ISV represent viable techniques for addressing vaginal stenosis secondary to PIV. Although PFV and ISV had comparable rates of short-term complications, ISV demonstrated a lower incidence of recurrent vaginal stenosis, which may inform operative decision-making.