No abstract

Introduction The age at which transgender women (TW) and men (TM) first experience gender dysphoria (GD) has not been reported in a U.S. population of adults seeking genital gender-affirming surgery (gGAS). Because gender is an innate part of identity, we hypothesized that untreated GD would be a part of individuals’ earliest memories. Understanding GD onset can help guide providers with when and how to focus care to patients not yet identified as “transgender Aim (i) Determine the age at which transgender adults seeking gGAS first experience GD (ii) Determine the number of life-years that transgender adults spend living with untreated GD Methods During initial consultation for gGAS, we asked patients the earliest age at which they experienced GD and the age at which they had their earliest episodic memory. We also queried history of anxiety, depression, and suicide attempt. Main Outcome Measures Patients self-reported their earliest recollections of experiencing GD, earliest memories in general, and history of anxiety, depression, and suicide attempt. Results Data from 155 TW (mean age 41.3; SD 16.3) and 55 TM (mean age 35.4; SD 10.8) were collected. Most patients (TM: 78%; TW: 73%) reported experiencing GD for the first time between ages 3 and 7 years.  For TM the mean age of onset was 6.17 years; for TW it was 6.71 years. A total of 81% of TW and 80% of TM described their first recollection of GD as one of their earliest memories. Mean years of persistent GD before the start of gender transition were 22.9 (TM) and 27.1 (TW). Rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation decreased following gender transition. Conclusion Our findings suggest that GD typically manifests in early childhood and persists untreated for many years before individuals commence gender transition. Diagnosis and early management during childhood and adolescence can improve quality of life and survival.

Introduction Permanent genital hair removal is required before gender-affirming vaginoplasty to prevent hair-related complications. No previous studies have directly compared the relative efficacy, costs, and patient experiences with laser hair removal (LHR) vs electrolysis treatments. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of medical devices is poorly understood and commonly misrepresented, adversely affecting patient care. Aim This study compares treatment outcomes of electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal and investigates FDA regulation of electrolysis and LHR devices. Methods Penile-inversion vaginoplasty and shallow-depth vaginoplasty patients completed surveys about their preoperative hair removal, including procedure type, number/frequency of sessions, cost, and discomfort. Publicly available FDA-review documents and databases were reviewed. Main Outcomes Measure Compared to electrolysis, LHR was associated with greater efficiency, decreased cost, decreased pain, and improved patient satisfaction. Results Of 52 total (44 full-depth and 8 shallow-depth) vaginoplasty patients, 22 of 52 underwent electrolysis only, 15 of 52 underwent laser only, and 15 of 52 used both techniques. Compared to patients that underwent LHR only, patients that underwent only electrolysis required a significantly greater number of treatment sessions (mean 24.3 electrolysis vs 8.1 LHR sessions, P < .01) and more frequent sessions (every 2.4 weeks for electrolysis vs 5.3 weeks for LHR, P < .01) to complete treatment (defined as absence of re-growth over 2 months). Electrolysis sessions were significantly longer than LHR sessions (152 minutes vs 26 minutes, P < .01). Total treatment costs for electrolysis ($5,161) were significantly greater than for laser ($981, P < .01). Electrolysis was associated with greater pain and significantly increased need for pretreatment analgesia, which further contributed to higher net costs for treatment with electrolysis vs laser. Many LHR and electrolysis devices have been FDA-cleared for safety, but the FDA does not assess or compare clinical efficacy or efficiency. Clinical Implications For patients with dark-pigmented hair, providers should consider LHR as the first-line treatment option for preoperative hair removal before gender-affirming vaginoplasty. Strength and Limitations This is the first study to compare electrolysis and LHR for genital hair removal. The discussion addresses FDA review/oversight of devices, which is commonly misrepresented. Limitations include the survey format for data collection. Conclusion When compared with electrolysis, LHR showed greater treatment efficiency (shorter and fewer treatment sessions to complete treatment), less pain, greater tolerability, and lower total cost. Our data suggests that, for patients with dark genital hair, providers should consider recommending laser as the first-line treatment for permanent genital hair removal before vaginoplasty.

No abstract

Background While the revised UNOS HTx donor allocation system aimed to minimize waitlist mortality by prioritizing more critically ill transplant candidates, there is concern for increased post‐transplant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of the revised allocation system on waitlist and post‐transplant outcomes at a high‐volume transplant center. Methods One hundred and sixty nine adult patients underwent first‐time single‐organ HTx one year before (Era 1:79 patients) and after (Era 2:90 patients) implementation of the new allocation system (10/18/2018). Clinical characteristics, waitlist outcomes, and post‐transplant morbidity and mortality were compared. Results Era 2 patients were twice as likely to be transplanted on temporary mechanical circulatory support (43% vs. 19%, p < .0001). While Era 2 waitlist time was shorter (10 vs. 43 days, p < .001), exception status requests (21.1% vs. 17.9%) and waitlist mortality (3.3% vs. 2.2%) were similar. There was no difference in primary graft dysfunction, intensive care unit or hospital length of stay, readmissions, rejection, allograft vasculopathy, or 1‐year survival (91.1% vs. 93.7%). Conclusions In a high‐volume center, the revised HTx allocation system shortened waitlist time with no significant change in waitlist mortality or observed impact on post‐transplant outcomes. With careful patient selection, the revised allocation system may optimize waitlist and post‐transplant outcomes.