No abstract

Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is often a crucial step during the journey to identity actualization for transgender patients. Surgical breast augmentation, or "top surgery", is frequently cited as the most important and sometimes only gender-affirming procedure sought by transfeminine patients. The breast augmentation process is remarkably similar in transgender and cisgender patients. However, there are unique guidelines, anatomic considerations, and contextual issues for the transgender patient population that must be taken into account by providers to achieve optimal outcomes. The aim of this review is to outline the current state of breast augmentation for transfeminine patients. We walk through our suggested pre-surgical evaluation, breast augmentation options, and post-surgical care. In the preoperative period, providers must establish a positive provider-patient relationship that allows for thorough history taking, physical examination, and goal setting. Providers must be able to select an appropriate implant, incision location, and operative plane to balance patient desires and pre-existing anatomic characteristics in transfeminine patients.Postoperatively, the provider must address acute and chronic needs to allow for continued satisfaction and safety. After reading this review, we aim for providers to be well-equipped to provide the highest quality breast augmentation care for their transfeminine patients. As research into best practices for breast augmentation in transfeminine patients continues to develop, we expect that surgical practice will continue to evolve.

Introduction The thigh has been called the reconstructive warehouse. The anterolateral thigh (ALT) and vastus lateralis (VL) flaps are popular options for free tissue transfer in lower extremity reconstruction. We sought to review the largest experience of these flaps in the chronic wound population. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lower extremity reconstruction using ALT or VL flaps by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2018. Results Fifty ALT and 34 VL flaps were identified. Comorbidities were similar between groups with the exception of body mass index (ALT, 26.8; VL, 30.1; P = 0.0121). There was also a significant difference rate of independent ambulation preoperatively (ALT, 98.0%; VL, 85.3%; P = 0.0375). An adjunct was needed for recipient site coverage in 31.5% (19/50) of ALT patients and 100% (34/34) of VL patients. Of the patients who received skin grafts, delayed placement was more frequent in the ALT (53.3%) versus VL cohort (18.2%) (P = 0.0192). Median graft take and the rate of skin graft revision were not statistically different. Flap success rates were similar: ALT, 92.0%; and VL, 94.1%. Overall complication rates were not significantly different: ALT, 26.0%; and VL, 38.2%. Infectious complications were also comparable. Subsequent debulking procedures were performed on 8.0% of ALT flaps and 11.8% VL flaps (P = 0.7092). Limb salvage rates were similar between both cohorts (ALT, 82.0%; VL, 88.2%). Ambulation rate was significantly higher for the ALT cohort at 92.0% compared with 73.5% for the VL cohort (P = 0.0216). Median follow-up was similar for both groups. Conclusions We present the largest comparison study of ALT and VL flaps in lower extremity salvage. Complication rates, flap success, and limb salvage were similar between the 2 cohorts. Despite a high prevalence of osteomyelitis in both cohorts, there was no difference in infectious complications. Although the need for skin grafting remains an inherent disadvantage of the VL flap, a significant proportion of ALT recipients also needed an adjunct for recipient site coverage. Ambulation rate was significantly greater in the ALT group. However, flap type was no longer significant for ambulation when controlling for preoperative ambulatory status.

No abstract