BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming mastectomy can improve mental health and gender expression. However, there is no consensus on routine drain usage in gender-affirming surgeries. The purpose of this study is to compare gender-affirming mastectomies with and without drains and review complications.
METHODS: An institutional review board-approved, retrospective review was performed to identify patients between 2017-2021 who had double-incision mastectomy, with or without nipple graft, and separated into drain and no-drain cohorts. Patient demographics, outcomes, and postoperative complications were analyzed, including unplanned return to the operating room, seromas, hematomas, postoperative infection, and postoperative antibiotic use. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed.
RESULTS: There were 359 patients that had a gender-affirming mastectomy surgery between 2017 and 2021. The mean age was 26.1 years old, and mean body mass index was 27.4. There were 144 patients (40.1%) who had a drain, and 215 patients (59.9%) without a drain. For postoperative complications of all patients, there were 12 (3.3%) unplanned returns to the operating room, 18 seromas (5.0%), 26 hematomas (7.2%), 50 (13.9%) postoperative antibiotic use, and 4 postoperative infections (1.1%). There were no significant differences found between drain use for all postoperative complications, but no-drain use was significantly associated with less prescribed postoperative antibiotics compared to drain use (3.7% and 29.0%, respectively; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Gender-affirming mastectomy surgeries are safe and effective treatment options. No-drain placement was not associated with increased postoperative complications. Surgeons may consider not prescribing routine postoperative antibiotics if using drains, and avoiding drains for gender-affirming mastectomies may be considered in selected individuals based on clinical judgment.

暂无摘要。

Background and Objectives: Transgender people are defined as individuals whose gender identity does not entirely match their sex assigned at birth. Gender surgery typically represents the conclusive and irreversible step in the therapeutic process, especially for the impact on the reproductive sphere. The increased awareness of gender dysphoria and the expanding array of medical and surgical options, including minimally invasive techniques, contribute to the gradual increase in the social impact of transgender surgery. There are several surgical techniques for \"gender assignment\", such as vaginal, laparotomic, laparoscopic, and robotic, and the novel approach of vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery to perform a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). The purpose of this review is to assess the various surgical approaches (hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy) for gender reassignment in order to determine the best option in clinical practice for the female-to-male population in terms of surgical outcomes such as operative time, surgical complication, hospital discharge, postoperative pain, and bleeding. Materials and Methods: This systematic review includes studies from 2007 to 2024. Special consideration was given to articles documenting the characteristics and management of female-to-male reassignment surgery. Finally, eight papers were included in this review. Results: The literature analysis considered surgical techniques ranging from traditional surgery to innovative methods like vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and the robotic approach offer potential benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays. While vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery may encounter challenges due to narrow access and smaller vaginal dimensions, robotic single-site hysterectomy may face instrument conflict. Conclusions: The conventional laparoscopic approach remains widely used, demonstrating safety and efficacy. Overall, this review underscores the evolving landscape of surgical techniques for gender affirmation and emphasizes the necessity for personalized approaches to meet the specific needs of transgender patients.

BACKGROUND: Facial feminization surgery (FFS) is an emerging practice that falls under the broader umbrella of gender-affirming surgery. Various approaches exist to feminize the face, yet few published articles describe in detail the techniques of each component procedure. Considering the diversity of interventions employed, the objective of this manuscript is to highlight FFS techniques utilized by the senior author and create a corresponding media gallery.
METHODS: All patients with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria that were referred to the senior author for FFS consultation between June 2017 and August 2022 were reviewed. Data were retrospectively collected from electronic medical records according to the institutional review board (IRB)-approved study protocol. Data collected and analyzed included demographics, operative documentation, and postoperative follow-up. Multimedia material was collected intraoperatively and postoperatively.
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent 262 operations with a total of 1224 FFS procedures. The average follow-up time was 7.7 ± 11 months. Out of the 262 operations, 24 (9.2%) patients experienced minor complications, including 3 (1.1%) with wound dehiscence, 13 (5.0%) with hematomas, and 14 (5.3%) with postoperative infection requiring antibiotics. Of those, 3 (1.1%) required a return to the operating room for washout or removal of malar implants.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a consensus on the fundamental surgical principles to achieve adequate feminization of the facial architecture, the specific techniques to do so differ according to individual practices. As techniques diverge, so do their risk profiles and outcomes; techniques must, thus, align with patients\' interventional goals. The material presented here is one of many that can support trainees and junior surgeons as they build a gender-affirming practice.

OBJECTIVE: To review findings related to phantom genital sensation, emphasizing phantom sensation in the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) population. We discuss prevalence, presentation and potential implications for sensory outcomes in genital gender-affirming surgery.
RESULTS: There is a high prevalence of phantom genital sensations in the TGD population. The prevalence varies by body part, approaching 50% in the most frequently reported transgender phantom - the phantom penis. Unlike genital phantoms that occur after trauma or surgery which are often painful, transgender phantoms are typically neutral and often erogenous in experience. Phantom sensation in the TGD population can be an affirming experience and important part of sexual well being and embodiment.
CONCLUSIONS: Recent studies have begun to characterize the prevalence and presentations of phantom genital sensations in TGD people, informing our evolving understanding of the sensory experiences of the transgender and gender diverse population. Targeting integration of these centrally-mediated phantom genital sensations with the peripherally generated sensation from genital stimulation may represent one potential avenue to improve sensation and embodiment following genital gender-affirming surgical procedures. Additionally, emerging techniques in modern peripheral nerve surgery targeting phantom pain may offer potential treatment options for painful phantom sensation seen after cases of genital surgery or trauma.

BACKGROUND: As we increasingly encounter transgender patients in the perioperative setting, it is important to be cognizant of appropriate medical management of the transgender patient. There is limited literature on the appropriate perioperative techniques to implement for adequate pain control in the transgender patient presenting for gender affirming procedures.
METHODS: In this scoping review, the authors identify publications that address perioperative pain control techniques that can be implemented by the anesthesiologist such as regional anesthesia, multimodal medications, or non-pharmacologic modalities.
RESULTS: This scoping review included two retrospective reviews, two case reports, and one letter to the editor. There are no prospective, randomized controlled trials on this topic. The limitations of this scoping review include the limited publications that are available to analyze as this is a growing area of medicine.
CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous variables that may play a factor in the pain experience of the transgender patient including biological factors, psychological and social factors. Techniques that are necessary for comprehensive pain management include pharmacologic, injections, physical therapy, acupuncture, massage, and more. There are limited publications on the comprehensive pain management of the transgender patient; therefore, the authors advocate that as perioperative physicians, anesthesiologists implement comprehensive preemptive analgesia techniques to avoid progression to chronic pain. Clearly more research is necessary to standardize acute pain management techniques in the transgender patient.

Regret after gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is a complex issue. Comparing regret after GAS to regret after plastic surgery operations and other major life decisions is a novel approach that can provide insight into the magnitude of this issue. A systematic review of three databases was conducted to investigate regret after common plastic surgery operations. Three separate literature reviews on regret after GAS, regret after elective operations, and regret after major life decisions were performed. A total of 55 articles examining regret after plastic surgery were included. The percentage of patients reporting regret ranged from 0 to 47.1 ​% in breast reconstruction, 5.1-9.1 ​% in breast augmentation, and 10.82-33.3 ​% in body contouring. In other surgical subspecialties, 30 ​% of patients experience regret following prostatectomy and up to 19.5 ​% following bariatric surgery. Rate of regret after GAS is approximately 1 ​%. Other life decisions, such as having children and getting a tattoo have regret rates of 7 ​% and 16.2 ​%, respectively. When comparing regret after GAS to regret after other surgeries and major life decisions, the percentage of patients experiencing regret is extremely low.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirmation surgeries are a rapidly growing set of procedures in the field of plastic surgery. This study is novel in that a thorough analysis has not been performed quantifying, identifying, and recognizing the reasons and factors associated with regret in a largely US population.
METHODS: A systematic review of several databases was conducted. After compiling the articles, we extracted study characteristics. From the data set, weighted proportions were generated and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 24 articles were included in this study, with a population size of 3662 patients. A total of 3673 procedures were conducted in the United States, 514 in European nations, 97 in Asian nations, which included only Thailand, and 19 in South American nations, which included only Brazil. The pooled prevalence of regret was 1.94%. The prevalence of transfeminine regret was 4.0% while the prevalence of transmasculine regret was 0.8%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both transfeminine and transmasculine patients had significantly lower rates of regret in the United States when compared with the rest of the world. Our study largely excluded facial gender-affirming surgeries as most of its articles did not fall into our inclusion search criteria. To our knowledge, this is the most recent review performed on the topic of regret among gender-affirming surgery patients with an emphasis on a US cohort. This analysis can help shed light on better ways to enhance patient selection and surgical experience.

Shifting societal attitudes trending toward increased acceptance of transgender people has contributed to a growth in the population of individuals who openly identify as transgender as well as an increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgeries. Therefore, health care providers should work toward increasing their knowledge with respect to the health care needs of the transgender population, particularly given that these individuals often face discrimination in the health care system. Moreover, transgender breast cancer screening rates lag behind breast cancer screening rates for cisgender individuals. We attempt to clarify important terminology about the transgender population and introduce the concept of equity-centered language. We review current transgender breast cancer screening guidelines by using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google with search terms that included transgender breast cancer guidelines, transgender breast cancer screening guidelines, and transgender cancer screening guidelines. Searches were not filtered based on year of publication, language of publication, or geographic location. We compare the various guidelines as they pertain to both transgender men and transgender women and offer special considerations for upholding inclusivity in the health care field. An easy-to-reference summary of the current transgender breast cancer screening guidelines and the major points of this article were compiled into an original infographic that health care providers can reference to ensure that appropriate care is being offered.

Thyroid chondroplasty (TC) in facial gender-affirming surgery (FGAS) is aimed at modifying the thyroid cartilage to achieve a more feminine laryngeal appearance. This study evaluated open versus endoscopic techniques to TC and associated outcomes and complications. A systematic review (SR) of articles pertaining to TC was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Twelve articles representing 368 patients were included for analysis. Nine articles described open approaches, and three articles described endoscopic techniques. The rate of total complications was 4.3% (n = 12) in the open approach compared to 15% (n = 13) in the endoscopic approach. Positive esthetic results were reported in 92% of cases performed with the open approach and 90% with the endoscopic approach. In the open approach, seven (2.5%) patients requested additional removal of cartilage, and three (1.1%) requested scar revision. In the endoscopic approach, three (3.7%) patients requested additional cartilage removal. In addition, data of individuals who underwent \"cervical tracheoplasty\" for gender dysphoria from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was reviewed, and there was no incidence of wound or major complications among patients who underwent tracheoplasty alone. Although the advantage of the endoscopic approach is a scarless neck incision, the rate of complications is higher with the open approach. Endoscopic approaches are still not widely used, and continued investigations are warranted to improve familiarity with this approach and reduce postoperative complications.