Transgender health · 2025
Rescue Antiemetic Treatments Following Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Matched Cohort Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Weingarten Toby N, Chavez Diana D, Printz Rachael L, Moseley Morgan L, Herndon Justine S, Gehling Matthew D, Marsland Samuel P, Schroeder Darrell R, Sprung Juraj
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this study, we compare the use of rescue antiemetics in transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) patients undergoing gender-affirming surgical procedures with cisgender patients undergoing matching procedures.
METHODS: TGD patients undergoing facial feminization, genitourinary, or chest procedures between 2018 and 2023 were matched to cisgender men and women controls (only women for chest/breast procedures) using age, smoking status, surgical duration, and year of surgery to compare the use of rescue antiemetics in the postanesthesia recovery room. Analyses were performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether TGD patients' risk for receiving rescue antiemetics differed from matched cisgender controls.
RESULTS: We identified 397 TGD patients assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 194 TGD patients assigned female at birth (AFAB) undergoing gender-affirming surgery. Regardless of gender identity, AFAB patients received more prophylactic antiemetics than AMAB patients. Both unadjusted and adjusted (for patient and procedural variables) analyses failed to find evidence that the need for rescue antiemetics differed between matched cisgender and TGD patients (p > 0.41 for all unadjusted and p > 0.34 for all adjusted comparisons).
CONCLUSION: When compared to matched cisgender controls, TGD patients undergoing gender-affirming procedures did not have a higher risk of needing postoperative rescue antiemetic therapy.
METHODS: TGD patients undergoing facial feminization, genitourinary, or chest procedures between 2018 and 2023 were matched to cisgender men and women controls (only women for chest/breast procedures) using age, smoking status, surgical duration, and year of surgery to compare the use of rescue antiemetics in the postanesthesia recovery room. Analyses were performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether TGD patients' risk for receiving rescue antiemetics differed from matched cisgender controls.
RESULTS: We identified 397 TGD patients assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 194 TGD patients assigned female at birth (AFAB) undergoing gender-affirming surgery. Regardless of gender identity, AFAB patients received more prophylactic antiemetics than AMAB patients. Both unadjusted and adjusted (for patient and procedural variables) analyses failed to find evidence that the need for rescue antiemetics differed between matched cisgender and TGD patients (p > 0.41 for all unadjusted and p > 0.34 for all adjusted comparisons).
CONCLUSION: When compared to matched cisgender controls, TGD patients undergoing gender-affirming procedures did not have a higher risk of needing postoperative rescue antiemetic therapy.