Freek P W de Rooij1, Tim C van de Grift2, Hans Veerman3, Muhammed Al-Tamimi4, Wouter B van der Sluis4, Brechje L Ronkes5, Müjde Özer6, Margriet G Mullender6, Mark-Bram Bouman6, Garry L S Pigot5. 1. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: f.derooij@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In our institution, genital Gender-Affirming Surgery (gGAS;phalloplasty or metoidioplasty) in transgender men is offered with or without Urethral Lengthening (UL). AIM: The aim of this cross-sectional and retrospective study was to assess the effect of gGAS with or without UL on several Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), and to identify predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up. METHODS: A self-constructed Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) was sent to transgender men who were ≥1 year after gGAS. The survey comprises 25 questions divided into 5 domains: type of surgery, satisfaction with the appearance and functionality, quality of life, feelings of masculinity, and sexuality. OUTCOMES: Answers to the survey were compared between groups, and a linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 154 eligible transgender men, the PROM was sent to 118 (77%) willing to participate, and 102 (66%) completed the survey. The majority previously underwent phalloplasty (n = 74;73%) compared to metoidioplasty (n = 28;27%). Urethral Lengthening was performed in 56/102 (55%) participants, 51/74 (69%) in phalloplasty, 5/28 (18%) in metoidioplasty. The mean number of complications and reoperations was significantly higher in the UL group (2.7vs1 and 1.6vs0.4 respectively, both P < .001). Most participants were satisfied to very satisfied with life (75%), the appearance (66%), voiding (59%), the effect of surgery on masculinity (82%), and confirmed that the end surgical result matched their expectations (61%), independently of UL. Lowest scores in satisfaction were observed for the sexual functioning of the neophallus, with 34% satisfied to very satisfied participants. Both satisfaction with the appearance of the neophallus (P < .001) and with voiding (P = .02) were positive predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up, in contrast to the complication and reoperation rate postoperatively (P = .48 and P = .95 respectively). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Transgender men choosing for gGAS with or without UL can be adequately informed on PROs regarding type of surgery, satisfaction with the appearance and functionality, quality of life, feelings of masculinity, and sexuality. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Study strengths comprise the relatively large cohort, long duration of follow-up, completeness of the data, and innovativeness of the studied outcomes. Limitations are the cross-sectional and retrospective design, possible participation bias and non-validated survey. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in several PROs were observed between participants who chose gGAS with or without UL in this retrospective study. Additionally, according to this study, satisfaction with the appearance of the neophallus and with voiding were positive predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up. de Rooij FPW, van de Grift TC, Veerman H, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes After Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery With Versus Without Urethral Lengthening in Transgender Men. J Sex Med 2020;18:974-981.
BACKGROUND: In our institution, genital Gender-Affirming Surgery (gGAS;phalloplasty or metoidioplasty) in transgender men is offered with or without Urethral Lengthening (UL). AIM: The aim of this cross-sectional and retrospective study was to assess the effect of gGAS with or without UL on several Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), and to identify predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up. METHODS: A self-constructed Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) was sent to transgender men who were ≥1 year after gGAS. The survey comprises 25 questions divided into 5 domains: type of surgery, satisfaction with the appearance and functionality, quality of life, feelings of masculinity, and sexuality. OUTCOMES: Answers to the survey were compared between groups, and a linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of overall patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 154 eligible transgender men, the PROM was sent to 118 (77%) willing to participate, and 102 (66%) completed the survey. The majority previously underwent phalloplasty (n = 74;73%) compared to metoidioplasty (n = 28;27%). Urethral Lengthening was performed in 56/102 (55%) participants, 51/74 (69%) in phalloplasty, 5/28 (18%) in metoidioplasty. The mean number of complications and reoperations was significantly higher in the UL group (2.7vs1 and 1.6vs0.4 respectively, both P < .001). Most participants were satisfied to very satisfied with life (75%), the appearance (66%), voiding (59%), the effect of surgery on masculinity (82%), and confirmed that the end surgical result matched their expectations (61%), independently of UL. Lowest scores in satisfaction were observed for the sexual functioning of the neophallus, with 34% satisfied to very satisfied participants. Both satisfaction with the appearance of the neophallus (P < .001) and with voiding (P = .02) were positive predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up, in contrast to the complication and reoperation rate postoperatively (P = .48 and P = .95 respectively). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Transgender men choosing for gGAS with or without UL can be adequately informed on PROs regarding type of surgery, satisfaction with the appearance and functionality, quality of life, feelings of masculinity, and sexuality. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Study strengths comprise the relatively large cohort, long duration of follow-up, completeness of the data, and innovativeness of the studied outcomes. Limitations are the cross-sectional and retrospective design, possible participation bias and non-validated survey. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in several PROs were observed between participants who chose gGAS with or without UL in this retrospective study. Additionally, according to this study, satisfaction with the appearance of the neophallus and with voiding were positive predictors of overall patient satisfaction at follow-up. de Rooij FPW, van de Grift TC, Veerman H, et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes After Genital Gender-Affirming Surgery With Versus Without Urethral Lengthening in Transgender Men. J Sex Med 2020;18:974-981.
Authors: Amir Khorrami; Sahil Kumar; Elise Bertin; Richard Wassersug; Cormac O'Dwyer; Smita Mukherjee; Luke Witherspoon; Peter Mankowski; Krista Genoway; Alex G Kavanagh Journal: Sex Med Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.523