No abstract

Primary colpectomy decreases the incidence rate of urethral fistulas. Secondary colpectomy is also an effective treatment of fistulas at the proximal urethral anastomosis and the fixed part of the neourethra.

Introduction Some transgender men express the wish to undergo genital gender-affirming surgery. Metoidioplasty and phalloplasty are procedures that are performed to construct a neophallus. Genital gender-affirming surgery contributes to physical well-being, but dissatisfaction with the surgical results may occur. Disadvantages of metoidioplasty are the relatively small neophallus, the inability to have penetrative sex, and often difficulty with voiding while standing. Therefore, some transgender men opt to undergo a secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty. Literature on secondary phalloplasty is scarce. Aim Explore the reasons for secondary phalloplasty, describe the surgical techniques, and report on the clinical outcomes. Methods Transgender men who underwent secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty were retrospectively identified in 8 gender surgery clinics (Amsterdam, Belgrade, Bordeaux, Austin, Ghent, Helsinki, Miami, and Montreal). Preoperative consultation, patient motivation for secondary phalloplasty, surgical technique, perioperative characteristics, complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded. Main Outcome Measure The main outcome measures were surgical techniques, patient motivation, and outcomes of secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty in transgender men. Results Eighty-three patients were identified. The median follow-up was 7.5 years (range 0.8–39). Indicated reasons to undergo secondary phalloplasty were to have a larger phallus (n = 32; 38.6%), to be able to have penetrative sexual intercourse (n = 25; 30.1%), have had metoidioplasty performed as a first step toward phalloplasty (n = 17; 20.5%), and to void while standing (n = 15; 18.1%). Each center had preferential techniques for phalloplasty. A wide variety of surgical techniques were used to perform secondary phalloplasty. Intraoperative complications (revision of microvascular anastomosis) occurred in 3 patients (5.5%) undergoing free flap phalloplasty. Total flap failure occurred in 1 patient (1.2%). Urethral fistulas occurred in 23 patients (30.3%) and strictures in 27 patients (35.6%). Clinical Implications A secondary phalloplasty is a suitable option for patients who previously underwent metoidioplasty. Strengths & Limitations This is the first study to report on secondary phalloplasty in collaboration with 8 specialized gender clinics. The main limitation was the retrospective design. Conclusion In high-volume centers specialized in gender affirming surgery, a secondary phalloplasty in transgender men can be performed after metoidioplasty with complication rates similar to primary phalloplasty.

Background Genital gender-affirming surgery (gGAS) with urethral lengthening (UL) in transgender men is associated with high urological complication and reoperation rates. Since 2009, we offer gGAS without UL to avoid these complications. Aim The aim of this study was to assess what portion of the transgender men opted for gGAS without UL and to assess functional, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction after gGAS without UL. Material and methods Retrospective data were collected from patients’ charts. The International Prostate Symptom Score, uroflowmetry, and 24-hour frequency voiding chart were used to assess voiding, and a self-constructed semistructured questionnaire was used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Transgender men who underwent gGAS without UL between January 2009 and January 2018 were included, and 56 transgender men were approached to complete the patient-reported outcome measurement. The simple statistical analysis combined with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. Outcomes 68 transgender men were included. Median follow-up time was 24 (6–129) months. Uroflowmetry and the International Prostate Symptom Score were completed by 44 transgender men, whereas 13 completed the frequency voiding chart preoperatively and postoperatively, respectively. The patient-reported outcome measurement was completed by 40 of 56 (71%) transgender men. Result Postoperative surgical and urological complications occurred in 9 of 68 (13%) and 8 of 68 (12%) patients, respectively. Storage and voiding function remained unchanged. The median quality of life because of urinary symptoms was scored as “pleased.” Sexual functioning and voiding were scored satisfactory and very satisfactory in 18 of 40 (45%) and 21 of 40 (53%) patients, respectively. The number of patients satisfied with the penis and neoscrotum was 25 of 40 (63%) and 26 of 40 (65%), respectively. Increased self-esteem was reported by 32 of 40 (80%), 32 of 40 (80%) would undergo the surgery again, and 28 of 40 (70%) would recommend it to others. Clinical Implications gGAS without UL should be part of the surgical armamentarium in centers performing gender-affirming surgery. Strengths and limitations Strengths of this study comprise the number of patients, the completeness of data, incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, and description of a relatively new surgical approach that may be well-suitable for a subgroup of transgender men. Limitations are the retrospective study design and the lack of validated questionnaires. Conclusion gGAS without UL shows good surgical and urological outcomes. After extensive counseling, the majority of this selective group of patients shows favorable patient-reported outcomes.