Geolani W Dy1, Min Suk Jun2, Gaines Blasdel2, Rachel Bluebond-Langner3, Lee C Zhao4. 1. Department of Urology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: Lee.zhao@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted peritoneal flap gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) with the da Vinci Xi system has been reported to be a safe alternative to traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty. Utilizing the Single Port (SP) robot system, our surgical approach has evolved. OBJECTIVE: To describe a step-by-step technique for RPGAV using the SP robot and to compare outcomes between Xi and SP systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 145 transgender women underwent RPGAV between September 2017 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed data for patients with a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Peritoneal flaps are harvested from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa. The vaginal space is dissected transabdominally. Inverted penile flap with or without scrotal graft is sutured to the peritoneal flaps, which form the neovaginal apex. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 100 (Xi = 47; SP = 53) patients had a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. The mean age was 36.2 (range 16.1-71.4) yr. Average procedure times were 4.2 and 3.7 h in Xi and SP cohorts, respectively (p <0.001). At the mean follow-up of 11.9 (range 6.0-25.4) mo, vaginal depth and width were 13.6 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 2.9-3.8) cm in the Xi group, and 14.1 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 3.5-3.8) cm in the SP group (p =0.07 and 0.04, respectively). Complications included transfusion (6%), rectovaginal fistula (1%), bowel obstruction (2%), pelvic abscess (1%), and vaginal stenosis (7%). CONCLUSIONS: RPGAV using the SP robot reduces operative time by facilitating a dual-surgeon abdominal-perineal approach. There is no difference in complication rates between the two approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied the outcomes of robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty with two robot systems. With both systems, patients had good vaginal depth and width at an average follow-up of 1 yr. Surgery time was shorter with the Single Port (SP) robot.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted peritoneal flap gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) with the da Vinci Xi system has been reported to be a safe alternative to traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty. Utilizing the Single Port (SP) robot system, our surgical approach has evolved. OBJECTIVE: To describe a step-by-step technique for RPGAV using the SP robot and to compare outcomes between Xi and SP systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 145 transgender women underwent RPGAV between September 2017 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed data for patients with a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Peritoneal flaps are harvested from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa. The vaginal space is dissected transabdominally. Inverted penile flap with or without scrotal graft is sutured to the peritoneal flaps, which form the neovaginal apex. MEASUREMENTS: Demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 100 (Xi = 47; SP = 53) patients had a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. The mean age was 36.2 (range 16.1-71.4) yr. Average procedure times were 4.2 and 3.7 h in Xi and SP cohorts, respectively (p <0.001). At the mean follow-up of 11.9 (range 6.0-25.4) mo, vaginal depth and width were 13.6 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 2.9-3.8) cm in the Xi group, and 14.1 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 3.5-3.8) cm in the SP group (p =0.07 and 0.04, respectively). Complications included transfusion (6%), rectovaginal fistula (1%), bowel obstruction (2%), pelvic abscess (1%), and vaginal stenosis (7%). CONCLUSIONS: RPGAV using the SP robot reduces operative time by facilitating a dual-surgeon abdominal-perineal approach. There is no difference in complication rates between the two approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied the outcomes of robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty with two robot systems. With both systems, patients had good vaginal depth and width at an average follow-up of 1 yr. Surgery time was shorter with the Single Port (SP) robot.