Sasha Karan Narayan1, Rayisa Hontscharuk2, Sara Danker3, Jess Guerriero4, Angela Carter5, Gaines Blasdel6, Rachel Bluebond-Langner6, Randi Ettner7, Asa Radix8, Loren Schechter9,10,11, Jens Urs Berli12. 1. Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Transgender Health Program, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Primary Care, Equi Institute, Portland, OR, USA. 6. NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 7. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 8. Callen-Lorde Community Health Center, New York, NY, USA. 9. The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 10. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 11. The Center for Gender Confirmation Surgery, Weiss Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA. 12. Division of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A rare, but consequential, risk of gender affirming surgery (GAS) is post-operative regret resulting in a request for surgical reversal. Studies on regret and surgical reversal are scarce, and there is no standard terminology regarding either etiology and/or classification of the various forms of regret. This study includes a survey of surgeons' experience with patient regret and requests for reversal surgery, a literature review on the topic of regret, and expert, consensus opinion designed to establish a classification system for the etiology and types of regret experienced by some patients. METHODS: This anonymous survey was sent to the 154 surgeons who registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference and the 2017 USPATH conference. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A MeSH search of the gender-affirming outcomes literature was performed on PubMed for relevant studies pertaining to regret. Original research and review studies that were thought to discuss regret were included for full text review. RESULTS: The literature is inconsistent regarding etiology and classification of regret following GAS. Of the 154 surgeons queried, 30% responded to our survey. Cumulatively, these respondents treated between 18,125 and 27,325 individuals. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons encountered at least one patient who expressed regret, with a total of 62 patients expressing regret (0.2-0.3%). Etiologies of regret were varied and classified as either: (I) true gender-related regret (42%), (II) social regret (37%), and (III) medical regret (8%). The surgeons' experience with patient regret and request for reversal was consistent with the existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature. Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: A rare, but consequential, risk of gender affirming surgery (GAS) is post-operative regret resulting in a request for surgical reversal. Studies on regret and surgical reversal are scarce, and there is no standard terminology regarding either etiology and/or classification of the various forms of regret. This study includes a survey of surgeons' experience with patient regret and requests for reversal surgery, a literature review on the topic of regret, and expert, consensus opinion designed to establish a classification system for the etiology and types of regret experienced by some patients. METHODS: This anonymous survey was sent to the 154 surgeons who registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference and the 2017 USPATH conference. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A MeSH search of the gender-affirming outcomes literature was performed on PubMed for relevant studies pertaining to regret. Original research and review studies that were thought to discuss regret were included for full text review. RESULTS: The literature is inconsistent regarding etiology and classification of regret following GAS. Of the 154 surgeons queried, 30% responded to our survey. Cumulatively, these respondents treated between 18,125 and 27,325 individuals. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons encountered at least one patient who expressed regret, with a total of 62 patients expressing regret (0.2-0.3%). Etiologies of regret were varied and classified as either: (I) true gender-related regret (42%), (II) social regret (37%), and (III) medical regret (8%). The surgeons' experience with patient regret and request for reversal was consistent with the existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature. Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic. 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: Joseph K Canner; Omar Harfouch; Lisa M Kodadek; Danielle Pelaez; Devin Coon; Anaeze C Offodile; Adil H Haider; Brandyn D Lau Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Grace Poudrier; Ian T Nolan; Tiffany E Cook; Whitney Saia; Catherine C Motosko; John T Stranix; Jennifer E Thomson; M David Gothard; Alexes Hazen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Dmitry Zavlin; Jürgen Schaff; Jean-Daniel Lellé; Kevin T Jubbal; Peter Herschbach; Gerhard Henrich; Benjamin Ehrenberger; Laszlo Kovacs; Hans-Günther Machens; Nikolaos A Papadopulos Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: E Coleman; A E Radix; W P Bouman; G R Brown; A L C de Vries; M B Deutsch; R Ettner; L Fraser; M Goodman; J Green; A B Hancock; T W Johnson; D H Karasic; G A Knudson; S F Leibowitz; H F L Meyer-Bahlburg; S J Monstrey; J Motmans; L Nahata; T O Nieder; S L Reisner; C Richards; L S Schechter; V Tangpricha; A C Tishelman; M A A Van Trotsenburg; S Winter; K Ducheny; N J Adams; T M Adrián; L R Allen; D Azul; H Bagga; K Başar; D S Bathory; J J Belinky; D R Berg; J U Berli; R O Bluebond-Langner; M-B Bouman; M L Bowers; P J Brassard; J Byrne; L Capitán; C J Cargill; J M Carswell; S C Chang; G Chelvakumar; T Corneil; K B Dalke; G De Cuypere; E de Vries; M Den Heijer; A H Devor; C Dhejne; A D'Marco; E K Edmiston; L Edwards-Leeper; R Ehrbar; D Ehrensaft; J Eisfeld; E Elaut; L Erickson-Schroth; J L Feldman; A D Fisher; M M Garcia; L Gijs; S E Green; B P Hall; T L D Hardy; M S Irwig; L A Jacobs; A C Janssen; K Johnson; D T Klink; B P C Kreukels; L E Kuper; E J Kvach; M A Malouf; R Massey; T Mazur; C McLachlan; S D Morrison; S W Mosser; P M Neira; U Nygren; J M Oates; J Obedin-Maliver; G Pagkalos; J Patton; N Phanuphak; K Rachlin; T Reed; G N Rider; J Ristori; S Robbins-Cherry; S A Roberts; K A Rodriguez-Wallberg; S M Rosenthal; K Sabir; J D Safer; A I Scheim; L J Seal; T J Sehoole; K Spencer; C St Amand; T D Steensma; J F Strang; G B Taylor; K Tilleman; G G T'Sjoen; L N Vala; N M Van Mello; J F Veale; J A Vencill; B Vincent; L M Wesp; M A West; J Arcelus Journal: Int J Transgend Health Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: Kinnon R MacKinnon; Hannah Kia; Travis Salway; Florence Ashley; Ashley Lacombe-Duncan; Alex Abramovich; Gabriel Enxuga; Lori E Ross Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01