Does method matter? Characterizing the effect of preoperative hair removal method on outcomes following penile inversion vaginoplasty

Berger, Lauren E.; Lava, Christian X.; Huffman, Samuel S.; Spoer, Daisy L.; Martin, Taylor S.; Fan, Kenneth L.; Corral, Gabriel A. Del

doi:10.1007/s00238-023-02059-z

Cited by 2 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this study failed to report and/or account for potential demographic differences between individuals who reported receiving preoperative genital hair removal and those who did not. 13 In contrast, Yuan et al compared LHR to electrolysis and found that LHR was associated with decreased pain and patient dissatisfaction (n = 22 for electrolysis, n = 15 for laser and n = 15 for both). Notably, a larger proportion of electrolysis patients (91.7%, [33/36]) needed pain medication during treatments compared to LHR (33.3%, [10/30]), with 47.2% (17/36) of electrolysis patients requiring local injected anaesthetic, while laser patients used only topical pain medication.…”

Section: Types Of Gender-affirming Dermatology Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The reporting bias in all 13 studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] was deemed acceptable based on the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. 11 The checklist scores ranged from 56% to 100% (M = 75%, SD = 12.4%).…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over half of the included studies focused on genderaffirming hair removal (7/13), 13,[16][17][18][21][22][23] while four were on nonsurgical injectables (4/13) 14,15,20,25 and the remaining were each on different types of genderaffirming dermatology treatments (2/13). 19,24 Gender-affirming hair removal Seven studies (7/13) investigated gender-affirming hair removal.…”

Section: Types Of Gender-affirming Dermatology Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 Two studies, Berger et al and Yuan et al, investigated the psychosocial outcomes of various methods of preoperative genital hair removal before gender-affirming vaginoplasty. 13,16 Berger et al compared patients who received LHR (n = 11), electrolysis (n = 7) or at-home kits (n = 5), to controls who had not received preoperative genital hair removal (n = 5). They found that postoperative hair growth and recognition of strands of hair on the vaginal dilator upon removal were associated with significantly lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] 0.07, p = 0.03; OR 0.19, p = 0.02, respectively) and satisfaction with sexual function (OR 0.10, p = 0.002; OR, 0.02, p = 0.01, respectively).…”

Section: Types Of Gender-affirming Dermatology Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All 13 studies had their references screened however no further studies were identified for inclusion. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] An outline of the study selection process is in Figure 1.…”

Section: Articles Retrievedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the psychosocial impact of gender‐affirming dermatology treatments: A systematic review

de Baun,

Truong,

Beloborodova

et al. 2024

JEADV Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transgender individuals experience elevated mental health issues and a diminished quality of life compared to the general population. While gender‐affirming dermatology treatments hold promise in addressing these challenges, there is a notable dearth of research in this area. Therefore, the objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive summary of the existing literature on the psychosocial effects of gender‐affirming dermatology treatments in transgender populations. A systematic review of original research on gender‐affirming dermatology treatments in transgender populations was conducted from PubMed (including Medline), Cochrane Library and Embase following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses 2020 guidelines. The search was limited to studies published after 1 January 2013 and was conducted on 26 June 2023. Relevant reviews were excluded but had their references screened. All studies that met the inclusion criteria also had their references screened. Article screening involved two steps: initial abstract/title screening using Rayyan.ia, followed by full‐text screening for selected articles. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists. Thirteen studies were analyzed and most revealed a positive association between gender‐affirming dermatology treatments and favorable psychosocial outcomes. However, there was a large imbalance in the focus on transfeminine versus transmasculine individuals, alongside disparities in gender identification methods. Hair removal followed by nonsurgical injectables were the primary treatments studied. Most studies faced notable limitations, preventing a definitive causal relationship between gender‐affirming dermatology treatments and psychosocial effects. Across studies, there were discrepancies in the type of psychosocial outcome studied and a lack of standardized assessment tools. Despite these limitations, gender‐affirming dermatology treatments appear to have psychosocial benefits for transgender individuals, but further robust studies are needed for a comprehensive understanding of this relationship.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Gender-affirming Dermatology Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 98%