TY - JOUR
T1 - Gender Affirming Surgery
T2 - A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patientcentered Outcomes (Part 2: Genital Reconstruction)
AU - Oles, Norah
AU - Darrach, Halley
AU - Landford, Wilmina
AU - Garza, Matthew
AU - Twose, Claire
AU - Park, Chanjun S.
AU - Tran, Phuong
AU - Schechter, Loren S.
AU - Lau, Brandyn
AU - Coon, Devin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/1/1
Y1 - 2022/1/1
N2 - Objective: To perform the first systematic review of all available GAS publications across all procedures to assess outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment. Summary of Background Data: Assessment of GAS results is complex and multidimensional, involving not only complication rates but also anatomic (eg, vaginal depth), functional (eg, urinary), and psychosocial outcomes. A fully comprehensive aggregation of all prior research would offer an essential cornerstone for continued progress. Methods: A systematic review was performed after PRISMA guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including patient-centered outcomes, complications, and functional outcomes. Data were aggregated to assess pooled rates of complications, satisfaction, and other outcomes. Results: Overall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications, including 171 vaginoplasty, 82 phalloplasty, 16 metoidioplasty, 23 oophorectomy/vaginectomy, and 21 with multiple procedures. Although 68.7% of genitoplasty papers addressed patient-centered outcomes, only 1.0% used metrics validated in the transgender population. Forty-three different outcome instruments were used. No instrument was used in more than 15% of published series and 38 were used in only 1 or 2 publications. Conclusions: Our review found high patient satisfaction for genital procedures but little concordance between study methods, with almost 90% of patient-focused outcome metrics appearing only once or twice. Standardization of outcome instruments and measurement methods through patientinclusive, multidisciplinary consensus efforts is the essential next step for quality improvement. As GAS continues to mature, building on current foundations with the goal of improving both surgical and patient-reported outcomes is essential.
AB - Objective: To perform the first systematic review of all available GAS publications across all procedures to assess outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment. Summary of Background Data: Assessment of GAS results is complex and multidimensional, involving not only complication rates but also anatomic (eg, vaginal depth), functional (eg, urinary), and psychosocial outcomes. A fully comprehensive aggregation of all prior research would offer an essential cornerstone for continued progress. Methods: A systematic review was performed after PRISMA guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including patient-centered outcomes, complications, and functional outcomes. Data were aggregated to assess pooled rates of complications, satisfaction, and other outcomes. Results: Overall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications, including 171 vaginoplasty, 82 phalloplasty, 16 metoidioplasty, 23 oophorectomy/vaginectomy, and 21 with multiple procedures. Although 68.7% of genitoplasty papers addressed patient-centered outcomes, only 1.0% used metrics validated in the transgender population. Forty-three different outcome instruments were used. No instrument was used in more than 15% of published series and 38 were used in only 1 or 2 publications. Conclusions: Our review found high patient satisfaction for genital procedures but little concordance between study methods, with almost 90% of patient-focused outcome metrics appearing only once or twice. Standardization of outcome instruments and measurement methods through patientinclusive, multidisciplinary consensus efforts is the essential next step for quality improvement. As GAS continues to mature, building on current foundations with the goal of improving both surgical and patient-reported outcomes is essential.
KW - Bottom surgery
KW - Breast augmentation
KW - Chest feminization
KW - Chest masculinization
KW - Craniofacial surgery
KW - Facial feminization
KW - Gender-affirming surgery
KW - Genital reconstruction
KW - Genitoplasty
KW - Hysterectomy
KW - Mastectomy
KW - Metoidioplasty
KW - Oophorectomy
KW - Ovariohysterectomy
KW - Patient-centered outcomes
KW - Phalloplasty
KW - Plastic and reconstructive surgery
KW - Quality improvement
KW - Top surgery
KW - Transgender
KW - Vaginoplasty
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122280888&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122280888&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004717
DO - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004717
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34914663
AN - SCOPUS:85122280888
SN - 0003-4932
VL - 275
SP - E67-E74
JO - Annals of surgery
JF - Annals of surgery
IS - 1
ER -