Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Plast Surg 2022; 55(02): 196-204
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749104
Original Article

A Comparative Study of Urinary Complication Rates before and after the Incorporation of a Urethral Lengthening Technique during Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirmation Surgery

Richie Gupta 
1   Department of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery and Gender Identity Clinic, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, India
,
Rajat Gupta
1   Department of Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery and Gender Identity Clinic, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, India
,
Anurag Puri
2   Department of Urology and Kidney Transplant, Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding No financial support or benefit has been received by any author.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Masculinizing genital gender affirmation surgery (MgGAS) consists of operative procedures designed to help the transition of transmen in their journey toward male gender role. Phalloplasty and urethral lengthening remain the most challenging of these surgeries, as the female urethra (4 cm long) must be lengthened to male dimensions (15–29 cm) with anastomosis at two sites, the native urethra/pars fixa urethra and the pars fixa urethra-penile urethra. As a result, there is a high incidence of urinary complications such as strictures and fistulae. Authors incorporated a urethral lengthening technique to reduce urinary complications in MgGAS. They compare the rates of urinary complications rates in cohorts before and after the introduction of this technique.

Materials and Methods Authors have been performing phalloplasty since past 27 years, utilizing mainly free radial artery forearm flap (fRAFFp 431 cases) and pedicled anterolateral thigh flap (pALTp 120 cases). A retrospective review and comparison of urinary complications were performed before and after the introduction of their new technique since March 2017.

Results There was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of stricture with and without fistulae (25.94% with conventional and 4.17% with urethral lengthening technique p = 0.001) and fistulae alone (12.81% with conventional and 2.78% with urethral lengthening technique p = 0.011) in fRAFFp cases. In pALTp cases, the respective reductions were 43.08 to 17.07%, p = 0.006 (significant), and 13.85 to 4.88%, p = 0.197 (not statistically significant).

Conclusion Over years, the rates of urinary complications in MgGAS have remained constant, varying from 25 to 58% for strictures and 17 to 75% for fistulae as noted by many authors. Authors noted that in most of their cases, strictures occurred at distal pars fixa urethra (DPFU)-penile urethra anastomosis and incorporated a urethral lengthening technique, which lengthens the DPFU by 3 to 5 cm at this anastomotic site, thus significantly reducing the anastomotic tension and the rate of urinary complications.

Keywords

masculinizing genitoplasty - phalloplasty - gender incongruence - gender affirmation surgery - sex change surgery - forearm flap - anterolateral thigh flap - urethral stricture - urethral fistula

Earlier Presentation:

Partially presented in the Webinar on masculinizing genitoplasty in patients with gender incongruence for ISRM Micro Vidyalaya on 25th august 2020.


Institutional Review Board

Approval was given for this study.




Publication History

Received: 24 March 2021

Accepted: 04 December 2021

Article published online:
18 July 2022

© 2022. Association of Plastic Surgeons of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Berli JU, Knudson G, Fraser L. et al. What surgeons need to know about gender confirmation surgery when providing care for transgender individuals: a review. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (04) 394-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arcelus J, Bouman WP, Van Den Noortgate W, Claes L, Witcomb G, Fernandez-Aranda F. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence studies in transsexualism. Eur Psychiatry 2015; 30 (06) 807-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Conron KJ, Scott G, Stowell GS, Landers SJ. Transgender health in Massachusetts: results from a household probability sample of adults. Am J Public Health 2012; 102 (01) 118-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Winter S, Diamond M, Green J. et al. Transgender people: health at the margins of society. Lancet 2016; 388 (10042): 390-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gates GJ. How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender? Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law; Los Angeles. CA: Accessed December 31, 2021 at: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Wiepjes CM, Nota NM, de Blok CJM. et al. The Amsterdam cohort of Gender Dysphoria study (1972–2015): trends in prevalence, treatment and regrets. J Sex Med 2018; 15 (04) 582-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nolan IT, Kuhner CJ, Dy GW. Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8 (03) 184-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 ASPS(American Society of Plastic Surgeons).. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. 2017 . Accessed December 31, 2021 online: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2017.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Walton AB, Hellstrom WJG, Garcia MM, Garcia MM. Options for masculinizing genital gender affirmation surgery: a critical review of the literature and perspectives for future directions. Sex Med Rev 2021; 9 (04) 605-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Chang TS, Hwang WY. Forearm flap in one-stage reconstruction of the penis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984; 74 (02) 251-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Koshima I, Tai T, Yamasaki M. One-stage reconstruction of the penis using an innervated radial forearm osteocutaneous flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 1986; 3 (01) 19-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Monstrey S, Hoebeke P, Dhont M. et al. Radial forearm phalloplasty: a review of 81 cases. Eur J Plast Surg 2005; 28: 206-212
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nikolavsky D, Hughes M, Zhao LC. Urologic complications after phalloplasty or metoidioplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2018; 45 (03) 425-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Morrison SD, Shakir A, Vyas KS, Kirby J, Crane CN, Lee GK. Phalloplasty: a review of techniques and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (03) 594-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Veerman H, de Rooij FPW, Al-Tamimi M. et al. Functional outcomes and urologic complications after genital gender affirming surgery with urethral lengthening in transgender men. J Urol 2020; 204 (01) 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Coleman E, Bockting W, Botzer M. et al. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender- Nonconforming People, 7th version. Int J Transgenderism 2020; 13 (04) 165-232
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gupta R, Kaushik N, Asokan A. et al. Surgical care: Surgical management of Gender Incongruence. In: Indian Standards of Care for Persons with Gender Incongruence and People with differences in Sexual Development/ Orientation version 1. Delhi: Wisdom Publishers; 2020: 66-165
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Bouman FG. The first step in phalloplasty in female transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 79 (04) 662-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Thompson IM. Results of vaginal flap urethroplasty in hermaphrodites. J Urol 1971; 105 (03) 456-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gupta R, Gupta R, Mehta R, Aggarwal A, Mathur A. Chapter 11-Gender dysphoria. In: Agrawal K, Mahajan RK. eds. Textbook of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery Volume IV. Noida, Uttar Pradesh: Thieme Publishers; 2019: 259-293
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kim SK, Moon JB, Heo J, Kwon YS, Lee KC. A new method of urethroplasty for prevention of fistula in female-to-male gender reassignment surgery. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64 (06) 759-764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rohrmann D, Jakse G. Urethroplasty in female-to-male transsexuals. Eur Urol 2003; 44 (05) 611-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cohen O, Stranix JT, Zhao L, Levine J, Bluebond-Langner R. Use of a split pedicled gracilis muscle flap in robotically assisted vaginectomy and urethral lengthening for phalloplasty: a novel technique for female to male genital reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (06) 1512-1515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kohler TS, Yadven M, Manvar A, Liu N, Monga M. The length of the male urethra. Int Braz J Urol 2008; 34 (04) 451-454 , discussion 455–456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Djordjevic ML. Novel surgical techniques in female to male gender confirming surgery. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7 (04) 628-638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar