Background: Vaginoplasty is a gender-affirming procedure for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients who experience gender incongruence. This procedure reduces mental health concerns and enhances patients' quality of life. A systematic review investigating the sexual health outcomes of vaginoplasty has not been performed. Objectives:To investigate sexual health after gender-affirming vaginoplasty for TGD patients.

Background: Gender-affirming mastectomy, or “top surgery,” has become one of the most frequently performed procedures for transgender and nonbinary patients. However, management of perioperative testosterone therapy remains controversial. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, many surgeons require cessation of testosterone before top surgery. This is the first study to compare complication rates in patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy with and without discontinuation of perioperative testosterone. Methods: This retrospective review included patients undergoing top surgery by the senior author between 2017 and 2020. Reflecting a change in the senior author’s practice, before May of 2019, all patients were required to discontinue testosterone before surgery; all patients treated after this point continued their testosterone regimens throughout the perioperative period. Patients were stratified according to testosterone regimen and perioperative hormone management, with demographic characteristics and postoperative outcomes compared among groups. Results: A total of 490 patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy during the study period were included. Testosterone was held perioperatively in 175 patients and continued in 211 patients; 104 patients never received testosterone therapy. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups and there was no difference in rates of hematoma (2.9% versus 2.8% versus 2.9%, respectively; P = 0.99), seroma (1.1% versus 0% versus 1%, respectively; P = 0.31), venous thromboembolism (0% versus 0.5% versus 0%, respectively; P = 0.99), or overall complications (6.9% versus 4.3% versus 5.8%, respectively; P = 0.54). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate no difference in postoperative complication rates among groups. Whereas further investigation is warranted, our data suggest that routine cessation of testosterone in the perioperative period is not necessary for patients undergoing gender-affirming mastectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

No abstract

BackgroundRecipient selection is an important determinant of surgical outcomes in facial transplantation (FT). Appropriately, each FT program develops their own guidelines for recipient selection criteria. Currently, there is no resource to simultaneously assess and identify similarities and differences between these guidelines. Such information could be useful in distinguishing areas of FT that are well understood from those that could benefit from further exploration.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the scientific literature from inception to June 18, 2021, using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify articles pertaining to recipient selection criteria. Clinical trials were identified through the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. United States and international program websites were reviewed for patient-facing information.ResultsOur systematic review yielded 90 suitable articles, 8 clinical trials, and 7 program websites containing the recipient selection criteria of 24 different FT programs. The most reported on recipient criteria were age, positive human immunodeficiency viral status (HIV+), positive hepatitis C viral status, psychosocial stability, and medical compliance. Other criteria were rarely addressed, such as blindness and recipient immune status.ConclusionsGuidelines among different face transplant programs are changing over time. We found consensus on certain recipient selection criteria, but the majority remain program or surgeon dependent, emphasizing that FT is still an evolving procedure. Although most programs reported on their recipient selection criteria, the rationale was often missing. Further discussion about recipient selection criteria and the reasoning behind employing or changing them will help advance the field.

No abstract