“Urinary Reconstruction in Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery: Checking Our Surgical Complication Blind Spots”

Abstract

Genital gender-affirming surgery (GGAS) to treat gender incongruence 1 related to genital configuration is based on individual goals and risk tolerance. In gender-affirming penile reconstruction, the primary procedure involves phalloplasty or a metoidioplasty, 2 and additional components with urologic implications Background: Urologic complications in genital gender-affirming surgery are imperfectly measured, with existing evidence limited by "blind spots" that will not be resolved through implementation of patient-reported outcomes alone. Some blind spots are expected in a surgical field with rapidly expanding techniques, and they may be exacerbated by factors related to transgender health. Methods: The authors provide a narrative review of systematic reviews published in the past decade to describe the current options for genital genderaffirming surgery and surgeon-reported complications, as well as contrasting peer-reviewed sources with data not reported by the primary surgeon. In combination with expert opinion, these findings help estimate complication rates. Results: Eight systematic reviews describe complications in patients undergoing vaginoplasty, including 5% to 16.3% mean incidence of meatal stenosis and 7% to 14.3% mean incidence of vaginal stenosis. Compared with surgeonreported cohorts, patients undergoing vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty in other reports had higher rates of voiding dysfunction (47% to 66% versus 5.6% to 33%), incontinence (23% to 33% versus 4% to 19.3%), or misdirected urinary stream (33% to 55% versus 9.5% to 33%). Outcomes in six reviews of phalloplasty and metoidioplasty included urinary fistula (14% to 25%), urethral stricture or meatal stenosis (8% to 12.2%), and ability to stand to void (73% to 99%). Higher rates of fistula (39.5% to 56.4%) and stricture (31.8% to 65.5%) were observed in alternate cohorts, along with previously unreported complications such as vaginal remnant requiring reoperation. Conclusions: The literature does not completely describe urologic complications of genital gender-affirming surgery. In addition to standardized, robustly validated patient-reported outcome measures, future research on surgeonreported complications would benefit from using the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study) framework for surgical innovation.