User login
An Overview of Gender-Affirming Care for Children and Adolescents
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
As Pride Month drew to a close, the Supreme Court made a shocking announcement. For the first time in the history of the court, it is willing to hear a legal challenge regarding gender-affirming care for minors. The justices will review whether a 2023 Tennessee law, SB1, which bans hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery for transgender minors, is unconstitutional. This is the first time the Supreme Court will directly weigh in on gender-affirming care.
There are few topics as politically and medically divisive as gender-affirming care for minors. When the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released its updated Standards of Care, SOC8, one of the noticeable changes to the document was its approach to caring for transgender children and adolescents.
Before I highlight these recommendations and the ensuing controversy, it is imperative to establish proper terminology. Unfortunately, medical and legal terms often differ. Both activists and opponents use these terms interchangeably, which makes discourse about an already emotionally charged topic extremely difficult. From a legal perspective, the terms “minor” and “child” often refer to individuals under the age of majority. In the United States, the age of majority is 18. However, the term child also has a well-established medical definition. A child is an individual between the stages of infancy and puberty. Adolescence is a transitional period marked by the onset of puberty until adulthood (typically the age of majority). As medical providers, understanding these definitions is essential to identifying misinformation pertaining to this type of healthcare.
For the purposes of this article, I will be adhering to the medical terminology. Now, I want to be very clear. WPATH does not endorse surgical procedures on children. Furthermore, surgeons are not performing gender-affirming surgeries on children. On adolescents, rarely. But children, never.
According to the updated SOC8, the only acceptable gender-affirming intervention for children is psychosocial support.1 This does not include puberty blockers, hormones, or surgery, but rather allowing a child to explore their gender identity by experimenting with different clothing, toys, hairstyles, and even an alternative name that aligns more closely with their gender identity.1
It is only after children reach adolescence that medical, and in rare cases, surgical interventions, can be considered. Puberty blockers are appropriate for patients who have started puberty and experience gender dysphoria. These medications are reversible, and their purpose is to temporarily pause puberty to allow the adolescent to further explore their gender identity.
The most significant side effect of puberty blockers is decreased bone density.1 As a result, providers typically do not prescribe these medications for more than 2-3 years. After discontinuation of the medication, bone density returns to baseline.1 If the adolescent’s gender identity is marked and sustained over time, hormone therapy, such as testosterone or estrogen is then considered. Unlike puberty blockers, these medications can have permanent side effects. Testosterone use can lead to irreversible hair growth, alopecia, clitoromegaly, and voice deepening, while estrogen can cause permanent breast growth and halt sperm production.1 Future fertility and these side effects are discussed with the patient in detail prior to the initiation of these medications.
Contrary to the current political narrative, gender-affirming care for children and adolescents is not taken lightly. These individuals often receive years of multidisciplinary assessments, with a focus on gender identity development, social development and support, and diagnostic assessment of possible co-occurring mental health or developmental concerns and capacity for decision making.1 The clinical visits also occur with parental support and consent.
WPATH SOC8 also delineates the provider qualifications for health care professionals assessing these patients. Providers must be licensed by their statutory bodies and hold a postgraduate degree by a nationally accredited statutory institution; receive theoretical and evidence-based training and develop expertise in child, adolescent, and family mental health across the developmental spectrum; receive training and have expertise in gender identity development and gender diversity in children and adolescence; have the ability to assess capacity to assent/consent; receive training and develop expertise in autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental presentations; and to continue engaging in professional development in all areas relevant to gender-diverse children, adolescents, and families.1
The most controversial aspect of gender-affirming care for children and adolescents relates to surgical treatment. While the rates of gender-affirming surgeries have increased for this age group over the years, the overall rate of gender-affirming surgery for adolescents is markedly lower compared with other adolescents seeking cosmetic surgeries and compared with transgender adults undergoing gender-affirming surgery.
In a cohort study conducted between 2016 to 2020, 48,019 patients were identified who had undergone gender-affirming surgery.2 Only 3678 or 7.7% of patients were aged between 12 and 18, with the most common procedure being chest/breast surgery.2 So, under about 1000 cases per year were gender-affirming surgeries on patients under 18.
During 2020 alone, the number of cisgender adolescents between the ages of 13 and 19 who underwent breast augmentation and breast reduction was 3233 and 4666, respectively.3 The outrage about gender-affirming surgeries on transgender youth, yet the silence on cosmetic procedures in this same age group, speaks volumes.
All surgeries on adolescents should be taken seriously and with caution, regardless of gender identity. However, current legislation disproportionately targets only transgender youth. For whatever reason, surgeries on transgender individuals are labeled as “body mutilation,” whereas surgeries on cisgender youth are not even discussed. Such inflammatory rhetoric and complete lack of empathy impedes the common goal of all parties: what is in the best interest of the minor? Unfortunately, in a few short months, the answer to this question will be determined by a group of nine justices who have no experience in medicine or transgender health care, instead of by medical experts and the parents who care for these individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pennsylvania. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 2022;23(sup):S1-S259.
2. Wright JD et al. National estimates of gender affirming surgery in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Aug 1;6(8):e2330348.
3. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2020.
The multiple meanings of sex
Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.
In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.
“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.
The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.
Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.
Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).
Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.
Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.
When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.
In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.
Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.
In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.
Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.
Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.
Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.
In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.
“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.
The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.
Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.
Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).
Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.
Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.
When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.
In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.
Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.
In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.
Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.
Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.
Knowing the sex of a developing fetus is a common question many expectant parents ask at their prenatal appointments. While the sex of a fetus has minimal clinical significance to obstetrician/gynecologists, technology has made ascertaining the answer to this question much more accessible.
In addition to detecting certain genetic abnormalities, both noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can discern the chromosomal sex of a fetus prior to birth. At the 20-week anatomy scan, the ultrasonographer can detect the presence of external genitalia to determine the sex. In fact, when a baby is first born, obstetrician/gynecologists are consistently asked “do I have a boy or a girl?” Assigning the sex of a newborn is one of the many tasks we complete in the delivery room. However, some of you reading this article would disagree.
“You cannot assign sex at birth.” “Sex is fixed, you cannot change biology.” These are examples of statements that frequent the comments section of my medical articles and plague professionals who treat gender diverse patients. I would argue, as would many biologists, scientists, and physicians, that these statements oversimplify biologic reality.
The term “sex” has multiple meanings: It can allude to the act of reproduction itself, but in the context of sexual determination and sexual differentiation, it can refer to the biologic and structural composition of a developing human. Within this paradigm, there exist three definitions for sex: chromosomal, gonadal, and phenotypic.
Chromosomal sex refers to the genetic makeup of a human, typically XX or XY chromosomes. There are also variations within this seemingly binary system. Embryos can have an extra sex chromosome, as seen in Klinefelter syndrome, which is characterized by XXY karyotype. Embryos can also be devoid of a sex chromosome, as observed in Turner’s syndrome, which is characterized by an XO karyotype. These variations can impact fertility and expression of secondary sexual characteristics as the type of sex chromosomes present results in primary sex determination, or the development of gonads.
Most often, individuals with a chromosomal makeup of XX are considered female and will subsequently develop ovaries that produce oocytes (eggs). Individuals with XY chromosomes are deemed male and will go on to develop testes, which are responsible for spermatogenesis (sperm production).
Gonadal sex is the presence of either testes or ovaries. The primary function of testes is to produce sperm for reproduction and to secrete testosterone, the primary male sex hormone. Similarly, ovaries produce oocytes and secrete estrogen as the primary female sex hormone. Gonads can be surgically removed either via orchiectomy (the removal of testes), or oophorectomy (the removal of ovaries) for a variety of reasons. There is no current medical technology that can replace the function of these structures, although patients can be placed on hormone replacement to counter the negative physiologic consequences resulting from their removal.
Secondary sex determination, or sexual differentiation, is the development of external genitalia and internal genital tracts because of the hormones produced from the gonads. At puberty, further differentiation occurs with the development of pubic and axillary hair and breast growth. This process determines phenotypic sex – the visible distinction between male and female.
When opponents of gender affirming care state that individuals cannot change sex, are they correct or false? The answer to this question is entirely dependent on which definition of sex they are using. Chromosomal? Gonadal? Phenotypic? It is an immutable fact that humans cannot change chromosomal sex. No one in the transgender community, either provider or patient, would dispute this. However, we can remove gonadal structures and alter phenotypic sex.
In fact, many cisgender individuals also revise their phenotypic sex when they undergo augmentation mammaplasty, penile enlargement, or vulvoplasty procedures for the exact same reason.
Circling back to the debate about whether we can “assign sex at birth,” it all depends on what definition of sex you are referencing. At birth, obstetrician/gynecologists most often look at the phenotypic sex and make assumptions about the genetic and gonadal sex based on the secondary sexual characteristics. So yes, we can, and we do assign sex at birth. However, in the case of intersex individuals, these physical characteristics may not align with their gonadal and chromosomal composition.
In the case of an infant that has a known XY karyotype prior to birth but a female phenotype at birth (as seen in a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), what sex should be assigned to that baby? Should the infant be raised male or female? A lot of unintended but significant harm has resulted from providers and parents trying to answer that very question. The mistreatment of intersex patients through forced and coercive medical and surgical treatments, often in infancy, should serve as a dark reminder that sex and gender are not as biologically binary as we would like to believe.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
Moore KL and Persaud TVN. The urogenital system. In: Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier;2008:163-89.
Standring S. Development of the urogenital system. In: Gray’s Anatomy, 42nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2021:341-64.
Escobar O et al. Pediatric endocrinology. In: Zitelli BJ, ed. Zitelli and Davis’ atlas of pediatric physical diagnosis 8th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier;2023:342-81.
Updates on pregnancy outcomes in transgender men
Despite increased societal gains, transgender individuals are still a medically and socially underserved group. The historic rise of antitransgender legislation and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, further compound existing health care disparities, particularly in the realm of contraception and pregnancy. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives are typically first-line providers when discussing family planning and fertility options for all patients assigned female at birth. Unfortunately,
Only individuals who are assigned female at birth and have a uterus are capable of pregnancy. This can include both cisgender women and nonbinary/transgender men. However, societal and medical institutions are struggling with this shift in perspective from a traditionally gendered role to a more inclusive one. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives can serve to bridge this gap between these patients and societal misconceptions surrounding transgender men who desire and experience pregnancy.
Providers need to remember that many transmasculine individuals will still retain their uterus and are therefore capable of getting pregnant. While testosterone causes amenorrhea, if patients are engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse, conception is still possible. If a patient does not desire pregnancy, all contraceptive options available for cisgender women, which also include combined oral contraceptives, should be offered.
For patients seeking to become pregnant, testosterone must be discontinued. Testosterone is teratogenic; it can cause abnormal urogenital development in the female fetus and should be avoided even prior to conception.1,2 The timing of testosterone discontinuation is debatable. There are no well-established guidelines dictating how early pregnancy can be attempted after cessation of testosterone, but typically if menses has resumed, the teratogenic effects of testosterone are less likely.
For amenorrheic patients on testosterone, menses will occur, on average, 3-6 months after testosterone is stopped. Of note, the longer that testosterone has been suspended, the greater the likelihood of achieving pregnancy.3 In a study by Light et al., 72% of patients conceived within 6 months of attempting pregnancy, 80% resumed menses within 6 months of stopping testosterone, and 20% of individuals conceived while they were amenorrheic from testosterone.4
Psychosocial support is an essential part of pregnancy care in transgender men. For some patients, pregnancy can worsen gender dysphoria, whereas others are empowered by the experience. Insurance companies may also deny obstetric care services to transgender males who have already changed their gender marker from female to male on insurance policies.
Whether transmasculine individuals are at higher risk for pregnancy complications is largely unknown, although emerging research in this field has yielded interesting results. While testosterone can cause vaginal atrophy, it does not seem to increase a patient’s risk of vaginal lacerations or their ability to have a successful vaginal delivery. For transgender men with significant discomfort around their genitalia, an elective cesarean section may be appropriate.5
More recently, Stroumsa et al. conducted an analysis of all deliveries at a Michigan institution from 2014 to 2018. Patients with male gender at the time of delivery or with the diagnostic code of gender dysphoria were identified as transgender.6 The primary outcome of this study was severe parental morbidity (such as amniotic fluid embolism, acute myocardial infarction, eclampsia, etc.), with secondary outcomes investigating rates of cesarean delivery and preterm birth.
During this time period, the researchers identified 256 transgender patients and 1.3 million cisgender patients in their Medicaid database and 1,651 transgender patients and 1.5 million cisgender patients in the commercial database who had experienced a delivery.6 Compared with cisgender patients, transgender patients in the Medicaid database were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to have a chronic condition.6 Compared with cisgender patients in the commercial database, transgender patients experienced higher rates of anxiety and depression.6 Both transgender and cisgender patients had similar rates of severe parental morbidity. Ironically, rates of cesarean delivery were lower, compared with cisgender patients, in both the Medicaid and commercial databases, with no differences observed between rates of preterm birth.6
While more research is needed on pregnancy in transgender men, this analysis is not only one of the largest to date, but it also challenges many misconceptions providers have regarding pregnancy outcomes. Even though transmasculine patients may require additional medical interventions to achieve pregnancy, such as assisted reproductive technology, or increased psychosocial support during the process, these initial studies are reassuring. Based on current evidence, these patients are not at greater risk for perinatal complications than their cisgender counterparts.
Despite these encouraging findings, there are still several challenges faced by transgender men when it comes to getting pregnant. For instance, they may have difficulty accessing fertility services because of financial constraints or experience a lack of awareness or prejudice from providers; they might also be subject to discrimination or stigma within health care settings. As front-line providers for obstetrical care, we must lead the way towards improving the care for pregnant transmasculine individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Light A et al. Family planning and contraception use in transgender men. Contraception. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.06.006.
2. Krempasky C et al. Contraception across the transmasculine spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.043.
3. Obedin-Maliver J, De Haan G. “Gynecologic care for transgender patients” in Ferrando C, ed., Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2019. 131-51.
4. Light AD et al. Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.
5. Brandt JS et al. Transgender men, pregnancy, and the “new” advanced paternal age: A review of the literature. Maturitas. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.004.
6. Stroumsa D et al. Pregnancy outcomes in a U.S. cohort of transgender people. JAMA. 2023 Jun 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7688.
Despite increased societal gains, transgender individuals are still a medically and socially underserved group. The historic rise of antitransgender legislation and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, further compound existing health care disparities, particularly in the realm of contraception and pregnancy. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives are typically first-line providers when discussing family planning and fertility options for all patients assigned female at birth. Unfortunately,
Only individuals who are assigned female at birth and have a uterus are capable of pregnancy. This can include both cisgender women and nonbinary/transgender men. However, societal and medical institutions are struggling with this shift in perspective from a traditionally gendered role to a more inclusive one. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives can serve to bridge this gap between these patients and societal misconceptions surrounding transgender men who desire and experience pregnancy.
Providers need to remember that many transmasculine individuals will still retain their uterus and are therefore capable of getting pregnant. While testosterone causes amenorrhea, if patients are engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse, conception is still possible. If a patient does not desire pregnancy, all contraceptive options available for cisgender women, which also include combined oral contraceptives, should be offered.
For patients seeking to become pregnant, testosterone must be discontinued. Testosterone is teratogenic; it can cause abnormal urogenital development in the female fetus and should be avoided even prior to conception.1,2 The timing of testosterone discontinuation is debatable. There are no well-established guidelines dictating how early pregnancy can be attempted after cessation of testosterone, but typically if menses has resumed, the teratogenic effects of testosterone are less likely.
For amenorrheic patients on testosterone, menses will occur, on average, 3-6 months after testosterone is stopped. Of note, the longer that testosterone has been suspended, the greater the likelihood of achieving pregnancy.3 In a study by Light et al., 72% of patients conceived within 6 months of attempting pregnancy, 80% resumed menses within 6 months of stopping testosterone, and 20% of individuals conceived while they were amenorrheic from testosterone.4
Psychosocial support is an essential part of pregnancy care in transgender men. For some patients, pregnancy can worsen gender dysphoria, whereas others are empowered by the experience. Insurance companies may also deny obstetric care services to transgender males who have already changed their gender marker from female to male on insurance policies.
Whether transmasculine individuals are at higher risk for pregnancy complications is largely unknown, although emerging research in this field has yielded interesting results. While testosterone can cause vaginal atrophy, it does not seem to increase a patient’s risk of vaginal lacerations or their ability to have a successful vaginal delivery. For transgender men with significant discomfort around their genitalia, an elective cesarean section may be appropriate.5
More recently, Stroumsa et al. conducted an analysis of all deliveries at a Michigan institution from 2014 to 2018. Patients with male gender at the time of delivery or with the diagnostic code of gender dysphoria were identified as transgender.6 The primary outcome of this study was severe parental morbidity (such as amniotic fluid embolism, acute myocardial infarction, eclampsia, etc.), with secondary outcomes investigating rates of cesarean delivery and preterm birth.
During this time period, the researchers identified 256 transgender patients and 1.3 million cisgender patients in their Medicaid database and 1,651 transgender patients and 1.5 million cisgender patients in the commercial database who had experienced a delivery.6 Compared with cisgender patients, transgender patients in the Medicaid database were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to have a chronic condition.6 Compared with cisgender patients in the commercial database, transgender patients experienced higher rates of anxiety and depression.6 Both transgender and cisgender patients had similar rates of severe parental morbidity. Ironically, rates of cesarean delivery were lower, compared with cisgender patients, in both the Medicaid and commercial databases, with no differences observed between rates of preterm birth.6
While more research is needed on pregnancy in transgender men, this analysis is not only one of the largest to date, but it also challenges many misconceptions providers have regarding pregnancy outcomes. Even though transmasculine patients may require additional medical interventions to achieve pregnancy, such as assisted reproductive technology, or increased psychosocial support during the process, these initial studies are reassuring. Based on current evidence, these patients are not at greater risk for perinatal complications than their cisgender counterparts.
Despite these encouraging findings, there are still several challenges faced by transgender men when it comes to getting pregnant. For instance, they may have difficulty accessing fertility services because of financial constraints or experience a lack of awareness or prejudice from providers; they might also be subject to discrimination or stigma within health care settings. As front-line providers for obstetrical care, we must lead the way towards improving the care for pregnant transmasculine individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Light A et al. Family planning and contraception use in transgender men. Contraception. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.06.006.
2. Krempasky C et al. Contraception across the transmasculine spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.043.
3. Obedin-Maliver J, De Haan G. “Gynecologic care for transgender patients” in Ferrando C, ed., Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2019. 131-51.
4. Light AD et al. Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.
5. Brandt JS et al. Transgender men, pregnancy, and the “new” advanced paternal age: A review of the literature. Maturitas. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.004.
6. Stroumsa D et al. Pregnancy outcomes in a U.S. cohort of transgender people. JAMA. 2023 Jun 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7688.
Despite increased societal gains, transgender individuals are still a medically and socially underserved group. The historic rise of antitransgender legislation and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, further compound existing health care disparities, particularly in the realm of contraception and pregnancy. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives are typically first-line providers when discussing family planning and fertility options for all patients assigned female at birth. Unfortunately,
Only individuals who are assigned female at birth and have a uterus are capable of pregnancy. This can include both cisgender women and nonbinary/transgender men. However, societal and medical institutions are struggling with this shift in perspective from a traditionally gendered role to a more inclusive one. Obstetrician-gynecologists and midwives can serve to bridge this gap between these patients and societal misconceptions surrounding transgender men who desire and experience pregnancy.
Providers need to remember that many transmasculine individuals will still retain their uterus and are therefore capable of getting pregnant. While testosterone causes amenorrhea, if patients are engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse, conception is still possible. If a patient does not desire pregnancy, all contraceptive options available for cisgender women, which also include combined oral contraceptives, should be offered.
For patients seeking to become pregnant, testosterone must be discontinued. Testosterone is teratogenic; it can cause abnormal urogenital development in the female fetus and should be avoided even prior to conception.1,2 The timing of testosterone discontinuation is debatable. There are no well-established guidelines dictating how early pregnancy can be attempted after cessation of testosterone, but typically if menses has resumed, the teratogenic effects of testosterone are less likely.
For amenorrheic patients on testosterone, menses will occur, on average, 3-6 months after testosterone is stopped. Of note, the longer that testosterone has been suspended, the greater the likelihood of achieving pregnancy.3 In a study by Light et al., 72% of patients conceived within 6 months of attempting pregnancy, 80% resumed menses within 6 months of stopping testosterone, and 20% of individuals conceived while they were amenorrheic from testosterone.4
Psychosocial support is an essential part of pregnancy care in transgender men. For some patients, pregnancy can worsen gender dysphoria, whereas others are empowered by the experience. Insurance companies may also deny obstetric care services to transgender males who have already changed their gender marker from female to male on insurance policies.
Whether transmasculine individuals are at higher risk for pregnancy complications is largely unknown, although emerging research in this field has yielded interesting results. While testosterone can cause vaginal atrophy, it does not seem to increase a patient’s risk of vaginal lacerations or their ability to have a successful vaginal delivery. For transgender men with significant discomfort around their genitalia, an elective cesarean section may be appropriate.5
More recently, Stroumsa et al. conducted an analysis of all deliveries at a Michigan institution from 2014 to 2018. Patients with male gender at the time of delivery or with the diagnostic code of gender dysphoria were identified as transgender.6 The primary outcome of this study was severe parental morbidity (such as amniotic fluid embolism, acute myocardial infarction, eclampsia, etc.), with secondary outcomes investigating rates of cesarean delivery and preterm birth.
During this time period, the researchers identified 256 transgender patients and 1.3 million cisgender patients in their Medicaid database and 1,651 transgender patients and 1.5 million cisgender patients in the commercial database who had experienced a delivery.6 Compared with cisgender patients, transgender patients in the Medicaid database were younger, less likely to be white, and more likely to have a chronic condition.6 Compared with cisgender patients in the commercial database, transgender patients experienced higher rates of anxiety and depression.6 Both transgender and cisgender patients had similar rates of severe parental morbidity. Ironically, rates of cesarean delivery were lower, compared with cisgender patients, in both the Medicaid and commercial databases, with no differences observed between rates of preterm birth.6
While more research is needed on pregnancy in transgender men, this analysis is not only one of the largest to date, but it also challenges many misconceptions providers have regarding pregnancy outcomes. Even though transmasculine patients may require additional medical interventions to achieve pregnancy, such as assisted reproductive technology, or increased psychosocial support during the process, these initial studies are reassuring. Based on current evidence, these patients are not at greater risk for perinatal complications than their cisgender counterparts.
Despite these encouraging findings, there are still several challenges faced by transgender men when it comes to getting pregnant. For instance, they may have difficulty accessing fertility services because of financial constraints or experience a lack of awareness or prejudice from providers; they might also be subject to discrimination or stigma within health care settings. As front-line providers for obstetrical care, we must lead the way towards improving the care for pregnant transmasculine individuals.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Light A et al. Family planning and contraception use in transgender men. Contraception. 2018 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.06.006.
2. Krempasky C et al. Contraception across the transmasculine spectrum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.07.043.
3. Obedin-Maliver J, De Haan G. “Gynecologic care for transgender patients” in Ferrando C, ed., Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2019. 131-51.
4. Light AD et al. Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000540.
5. Brandt JS et al. Transgender men, pregnancy, and the “new” advanced paternal age: A review of the literature. Maturitas. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.07.004.
6. Stroumsa D et al. Pregnancy outcomes in a U.S. cohort of transgender people. JAMA. 2023 Jun 6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.7688.
Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty
When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.
The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.
Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.1 Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.1 Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.
The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.
Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.2,3
The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.4 Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.4 The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.
The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.
Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.2 Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.
2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.
3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.
4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.
When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.
The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.
Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.1 Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.1 Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.
The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.
Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.2,3
The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.4 Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.4 The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.
The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.
Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.2 Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.
2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.
3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.
4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.
When the Food and Drug Administration first approved the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, Calif.) for adult use in 2000, it altered the face of minimally invasive surgery across a multitude of specialties. Improved three-dimensional visualization and enhanced instrument articulation facilitates complex dissections and intracorporeal suturing. While the standard of care for gender-affirming vaginoplasty remains the single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty, robotic procedures are quickly emerging as alternative options for both primary and revisional surgeries.
The single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty requires an adequate amount of penoscrotal tissue not only to line a neovaginal canal that measures 12-15 cm, but also to create external vulvar structures. While this is often sufficient in most candidates, there is an increasing number of patients who are receiving puberty blockers, resulting in penoscrotal hypoplasia.
Alternatively, there are patients who experience loss of vaginal depth and vaginal stenosis who seek revisional surgeries. Additional donor sites for skin grafting are available and include the lower abdomen and thighs, although patients may not want these donor site scars. With these donor sites, there is also concern about graft contracture, which could lead to recurrent vaginal stenosis.1 Robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty and robotic enteric vaginoplasty can serve as additional options for patients seeking revisional surgery or who have insufficient genital skin. One benefit of using peritoneal flaps is that they are hairless and are well vascularized with minimal donor site morbidity.1 Currently, there are two predominant techniques that utilize peritoneal flaps: the modified Davydov procedure and the tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap.
The modified Davydov technique, which originated in the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis in cisgender women, involves the creation of anterior and posterior peritoneal flaps. This type of peritoneal vaginoplasty is more commonly utilized for primary cases.
Ideally, there is a robotic surgeon (typically a urologist) working in tandem with the perineal surgeon. The robotic surgeon makes a horizontal incision along the peritoneal ridge at the rectovesical junction and continues the dissection within Denonvilliers fascia, between the prostate and rectum, to the pelvic floor. This dissection is like that performed in a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.
Simultaneously, the perineal surgeon will break through the pelvic floor with assistance of the robotic view. Peritoneal flaps are raised from the anterior rectum and posterior bladder.2,3 In primary cases, the penoscrotal flap is introduced into the abdomen from the perineum and sutured to the anterior and posterior peritoneum to create a circumferential canal. At the apex of the neovagina, these anterior and posterior flaps are then sutured together.2,3
The tubularized urachus-peritoneal hinge flap technique is predominantly used for revision cases in patients who experienced neovaginal shortening and desire increased neovaginal depth. As peritoneal reach is limited, candidates for this procedure must have both adequate width and neovaginal canal depth.4 Once intra-abdominal access is achieved, an anterior peritoneal flap is mobilized to the level of the bladder and rotated 180 degrees inferiorly.4 The superior aspect of the flap is flipped is mobilized and is sutured to the peritoneum at the apex of the neovaginal canal.
The main benefit of these procedures, compared with traditional techniques, is increased neovaginal depth. The average vaginal length in patients undergoing peritoneal vaginoplasties is 14.2 cm, compared with 11.6 cm achieved in those using skin grafts.1,3 However, many surgeons report achieving 14-15 cm of depth with the traditional vaginoplasty. There are insufficient short- and long-term data for the peritoneal technique to recommend this as a first-line procedure.
Complications for peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures are similar to those of single-stage penile inversion vaginoplasty cases but with additional operative risks associated with laparoscopic/robotic surgery. These risks include injury to viscera and major vessels during initial intra-abdominal access, intra-abdominal adhesions, port site hernias, need to convert to an open procedure, and equipment malfunction.2 Additional postoperative risks include pelvic abscess formation, dehiscence of the peritoneal-vaginal incision, and peritoneal perforation during dilation.2,3 Surgeons and institutions must also weigh the cost of using the robot versus the cost of additional revisional surgical procedures. While initial studies evaluating robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty procedures have yielded promising preliminary results, additional studies are warranted.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Salibian AA et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e-43e.
2. Dy GW et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:237-48.
3. Jacoby A et al. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171-5.
4. Smith SM et al. J Sex Med. 2022;10(6):100572.
Preoperative preparation for gender-affirming vaginoplasty surgery
The field of gender-affirming surgery is one of the fastest growing surgical specialties in the country. Within the last few years, the number of procedures has increased markedly – with a total of 16,353 performed in 2020 compared with 8,304 in 2017.1,2 As the number of surgeries increases, so does the need for a standardized approach to preoperative evaluation and patient preparation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery for transfeminine individuals encompasses a spectrum of procedures that includes removal of the testicles (orchiectomy), creation of a neovaginal canal (full-depth vaginoplasty), and creation of external vulvar structures without a vaginal canal (zero-depth vaginoplasty). Each of these requires different levels of preoperative preparedness and medical optimization, and has unique postoperative challenges. Often, these postoperative complications can be mitigated with adequate patient education.
Many centers that offer genital gender-affirming surgery have a multidisciplinary team composed of a social worker, mental health providers, care coordinators, primary care providers, and surgeons. This team is essential to providing supportive services within their respective scope of practices.
The role of the mental health provider cannot be understated. While the updated standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer require two letters from mental health providers prior to genital surgery, it is important to recognize that many insurance companies have not yet updated their policies and still require two letters. Even when insurance companies adjust their policies to reflect current standards, a mental health assessment is still necessary to determine if patients have any mental health issues that could negatively affect their surgical outcome.3 Furthermore, a continued relationship with a mental health provider is beneficial for patients as they go through a stressful and life-changing procedure.4
As with any surgery, understanding patient goals and expectations is a key element in achieving optimal patient satisfaction. Patients with high esthetic or functional expectations experience higher rates of disappointment after surgery and have more difficulty coping with complications.5
Decisions about proceeding with a particular type of genital surgery should consider a patient’s desire to have vaginal-receptive intercourse, their commitment to dilation, financial stability, a safe environment for recovery, a support network, and the ability to understand and cope with potential complications.4 Patients will present with a wide variety of educational backgrounds and medical literacy, and will have differing intellectual capabilities.4 Consultations should take into account potential challenges these factors may play in patients’ ability to understand this complex surgery.
An adequate amount of time should be allotted to addressing these challenges. In my practice, a consultation for a gender-affirming genital surgery takes approximately 60 minutes. A preoperative packet with information is mailed to the patient ahead of time that will be reviewed at the time of the visit. During the consultation, I utilize a visual presentation that details the preoperative requirements and different types of surgical procedures, shows preoperative and postoperative surgical results, and discusses potential complications. Before the consultation, I advise that patients bring a support person (ideally the person who will assist in postoperative care) and a list of questions that they may have.
Both full- and shallow-depth procedures are reviewed at the time of initial consultation. For patients who seek a full-depth vaginoplasty procedure, it is important to determine whether patients are committed to dilation and have a safe, supportive environment to do so. Patients may have physical limitations, such as obesity or mobility issues, that could make dilation difficult or even impossible. Patients may not have stable housing, may experience financial restrictions that would impede their ability to purchase necessary supplies, and lack a support person who can care for them in the immediate postoperative period. Many patients are unaware of the importance these social factors play in a successful outcome. Social workers and care coordinators are important resources when these challenges are encountered.
Medical optimization is not unlike other gynecologic procedures with a few exceptions. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking play larger roles in surgical complications than in other surgeries as vaginoplasty techniques use pedicled flaps that rely on adequate blood supply. Obesity, poorly controlled diabetes, and smoking are associated with increased rates of wound infection, poor wound healing, and graft loss. Smoking cessation for 8 weeks prior to surgery and for 4 weeks afterward is mandatory.
For patients with a history of smoking, a nicotine test is performed within 4 weeks of surgery. Many surgeons have body mass index requirements, typically ranging between 20 and 30 kg/m2, despite limited data. This paradigm is shifting to consider body fat distribution rather than BMI alone. Extensive body fat in the mons or groin area can increase the difficulty of pelvic floor dissection during surgery and impede visualization for dilation in the postoperative period. There are reports of patients dilating into their rectum or neourethra, which can have catastrophic consequences. For these patients, a zero-depth vaginoplasty or orchiectomy may initially be a safer option.
Many patients are justifiably excited to undergo the procedures as quality of life is typically improved after surgery. However, even with adequate counseling, many patients often underestimate the extensive recovery process. This surgical procedure requires extensive planning and adequate resources.4 Patients must be able to take off from work for prolonged periods of time (typically 6 weeks), which can serve as a source of financial stress. To maintain the integrity of suture lines in the genital region, prolonged or limited mobilization is recommended. This can create boredom and forces patients to rely on a caregiver for activities of daily living, such as household chores, cooking meals, and transportation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery is not only a complex surgical procedure but also requires extensive preoperative education and postoperative support. As this field continues to grow, patients, providers, and caregivers should work toward further developing a collaborative care model to optimize surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2020.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2017.
3. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. Version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 23(S1):S1-S258. doi :10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
4. Penkin A et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:37-44.
5. Waljee J et al. Surgery. 2014;155:799-808.
The field of gender-affirming surgery is one of the fastest growing surgical specialties in the country. Within the last few years, the number of procedures has increased markedly – with a total of 16,353 performed in 2020 compared with 8,304 in 2017.1,2 As the number of surgeries increases, so does the need for a standardized approach to preoperative evaluation and patient preparation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery for transfeminine individuals encompasses a spectrum of procedures that includes removal of the testicles (orchiectomy), creation of a neovaginal canal (full-depth vaginoplasty), and creation of external vulvar structures without a vaginal canal (zero-depth vaginoplasty). Each of these requires different levels of preoperative preparedness and medical optimization, and has unique postoperative challenges. Often, these postoperative complications can be mitigated with adequate patient education.
Many centers that offer genital gender-affirming surgery have a multidisciplinary team composed of a social worker, mental health providers, care coordinators, primary care providers, and surgeons. This team is essential to providing supportive services within their respective scope of practices.
The role of the mental health provider cannot be understated. While the updated standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer require two letters from mental health providers prior to genital surgery, it is important to recognize that many insurance companies have not yet updated their policies and still require two letters. Even when insurance companies adjust their policies to reflect current standards, a mental health assessment is still necessary to determine if patients have any mental health issues that could negatively affect their surgical outcome.3 Furthermore, a continued relationship with a mental health provider is beneficial for patients as they go through a stressful and life-changing procedure.4
As with any surgery, understanding patient goals and expectations is a key element in achieving optimal patient satisfaction. Patients with high esthetic or functional expectations experience higher rates of disappointment after surgery and have more difficulty coping with complications.5
Decisions about proceeding with a particular type of genital surgery should consider a patient’s desire to have vaginal-receptive intercourse, their commitment to dilation, financial stability, a safe environment for recovery, a support network, and the ability to understand and cope with potential complications.4 Patients will present with a wide variety of educational backgrounds and medical literacy, and will have differing intellectual capabilities.4 Consultations should take into account potential challenges these factors may play in patients’ ability to understand this complex surgery.
An adequate amount of time should be allotted to addressing these challenges. In my practice, a consultation for a gender-affirming genital surgery takes approximately 60 minutes. A preoperative packet with information is mailed to the patient ahead of time that will be reviewed at the time of the visit. During the consultation, I utilize a visual presentation that details the preoperative requirements and different types of surgical procedures, shows preoperative and postoperative surgical results, and discusses potential complications. Before the consultation, I advise that patients bring a support person (ideally the person who will assist in postoperative care) and a list of questions that they may have.
Both full- and shallow-depth procedures are reviewed at the time of initial consultation. For patients who seek a full-depth vaginoplasty procedure, it is important to determine whether patients are committed to dilation and have a safe, supportive environment to do so. Patients may have physical limitations, such as obesity or mobility issues, that could make dilation difficult or even impossible. Patients may not have stable housing, may experience financial restrictions that would impede their ability to purchase necessary supplies, and lack a support person who can care for them in the immediate postoperative period. Many patients are unaware of the importance these social factors play in a successful outcome. Social workers and care coordinators are important resources when these challenges are encountered.
Medical optimization is not unlike other gynecologic procedures with a few exceptions. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking play larger roles in surgical complications than in other surgeries as vaginoplasty techniques use pedicled flaps that rely on adequate blood supply. Obesity, poorly controlled diabetes, and smoking are associated with increased rates of wound infection, poor wound healing, and graft loss. Smoking cessation for 8 weeks prior to surgery and for 4 weeks afterward is mandatory.
For patients with a history of smoking, a nicotine test is performed within 4 weeks of surgery. Many surgeons have body mass index requirements, typically ranging between 20 and 30 kg/m2, despite limited data. This paradigm is shifting to consider body fat distribution rather than BMI alone. Extensive body fat in the mons or groin area can increase the difficulty of pelvic floor dissection during surgery and impede visualization for dilation in the postoperative period. There are reports of patients dilating into their rectum or neourethra, which can have catastrophic consequences. For these patients, a zero-depth vaginoplasty or orchiectomy may initially be a safer option.
Many patients are justifiably excited to undergo the procedures as quality of life is typically improved after surgery. However, even with adequate counseling, many patients often underestimate the extensive recovery process. This surgical procedure requires extensive planning and adequate resources.4 Patients must be able to take off from work for prolonged periods of time (typically 6 weeks), which can serve as a source of financial stress. To maintain the integrity of suture lines in the genital region, prolonged or limited mobilization is recommended. This can create boredom and forces patients to rely on a caregiver for activities of daily living, such as household chores, cooking meals, and transportation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery is not only a complex surgical procedure but also requires extensive preoperative education and postoperative support. As this field continues to grow, patients, providers, and caregivers should work toward further developing a collaborative care model to optimize surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2020.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2017.
3. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. Version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 23(S1):S1-S258. doi :10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
4. Penkin A et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:37-44.
5. Waljee J et al. Surgery. 2014;155:799-808.
The field of gender-affirming surgery is one of the fastest growing surgical specialties in the country. Within the last few years, the number of procedures has increased markedly – with a total of 16,353 performed in 2020 compared with 8,304 in 2017.1,2 As the number of surgeries increases, so does the need for a standardized approach to preoperative evaluation and patient preparation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery for transfeminine individuals encompasses a spectrum of procedures that includes removal of the testicles (orchiectomy), creation of a neovaginal canal (full-depth vaginoplasty), and creation of external vulvar structures without a vaginal canal (zero-depth vaginoplasty). Each of these requires different levels of preoperative preparedness and medical optimization, and has unique postoperative challenges. Often, these postoperative complications can be mitigated with adequate patient education.
Many centers that offer genital gender-affirming surgery have a multidisciplinary team composed of a social worker, mental health providers, care coordinators, primary care providers, and surgeons. This team is essential to providing supportive services within their respective scope of practices.
The role of the mental health provider cannot be understated. While the updated standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health no longer require two letters from mental health providers prior to genital surgery, it is important to recognize that many insurance companies have not yet updated their policies and still require two letters. Even when insurance companies adjust their policies to reflect current standards, a mental health assessment is still necessary to determine if patients have any mental health issues that could negatively affect their surgical outcome.3 Furthermore, a continued relationship with a mental health provider is beneficial for patients as they go through a stressful and life-changing procedure.4
As with any surgery, understanding patient goals and expectations is a key element in achieving optimal patient satisfaction. Patients with high esthetic or functional expectations experience higher rates of disappointment after surgery and have more difficulty coping with complications.5
Decisions about proceeding with a particular type of genital surgery should consider a patient’s desire to have vaginal-receptive intercourse, their commitment to dilation, financial stability, a safe environment for recovery, a support network, and the ability to understand and cope with potential complications.4 Patients will present with a wide variety of educational backgrounds and medical literacy, and will have differing intellectual capabilities.4 Consultations should take into account potential challenges these factors may play in patients’ ability to understand this complex surgery.
An adequate amount of time should be allotted to addressing these challenges. In my practice, a consultation for a gender-affirming genital surgery takes approximately 60 minutes. A preoperative packet with information is mailed to the patient ahead of time that will be reviewed at the time of the visit. During the consultation, I utilize a visual presentation that details the preoperative requirements and different types of surgical procedures, shows preoperative and postoperative surgical results, and discusses potential complications. Before the consultation, I advise that patients bring a support person (ideally the person who will assist in postoperative care) and a list of questions that they may have.
Both full- and shallow-depth procedures are reviewed at the time of initial consultation. For patients who seek a full-depth vaginoplasty procedure, it is important to determine whether patients are committed to dilation and have a safe, supportive environment to do so. Patients may have physical limitations, such as obesity or mobility issues, that could make dilation difficult or even impossible. Patients may not have stable housing, may experience financial restrictions that would impede their ability to purchase necessary supplies, and lack a support person who can care for them in the immediate postoperative period. Many patients are unaware of the importance these social factors play in a successful outcome. Social workers and care coordinators are important resources when these challenges are encountered.
Medical optimization is not unlike other gynecologic procedures with a few exceptions. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking play larger roles in surgical complications than in other surgeries as vaginoplasty techniques use pedicled flaps that rely on adequate blood supply. Obesity, poorly controlled diabetes, and smoking are associated with increased rates of wound infection, poor wound healing, and graft loss. Smoking cessation for 8 weeks prior to surgery and for 4 weeks afterward is mandatory.
For patients with a history of smoking, a nicotine test is performed within 4 weeks of surgery. Many surgeons have body mass index requirements, typically ranging between 20 and 30 kg/m2, despite limited data. This paradigm is shifting to consider body fat distribution rather than BMI alone. Extensive body fat in the mons or groin area can increase the difficulty of pelvic floor dissection during surgery and impede visualization for dilation in the postoperative period. There are reports of patients dilating into their rectum or neourethra, which can have catastrophic consequences. For these patients, a zero-depth vaginoplasty or orchiectomy may initially be a safer option.
Many patients are justifiably excited to undergo the procedures as quality of life is typically improved after surgery. However, even with adequate counseling, many patients often underestimate the extensive recovery process. This surgical procedure requires extensive planning and adequate resources.4 Patients must be able to take off from work for prolonged periods of time (typically 6 weeks), which can serve as a source of financial stress. To maintain the integrity of suture lines in the genital region, prolonged or limited mobilization is recommended. This can create boredom and forces patients to rely on a caregiver for activities of daily living, such as household chores, cooking meals, and transportation.
Gender-affirming genital surgery is not only a complex surgical procedure but also requires extensive preoperative education and postoperative support. As this field continues to grow, patients, providers, and caregivers should work toward further developing a collaborative care model to optimize surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2020.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic Surgery Statistics Report–2017.
3. Coleman E et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. Version 8. Int J Transgender Health. 23(S1):S1-S258. doi :10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
4. Penkin A et al. In: Nikolavsky D and Blakely SA, eds. Urological care for the transgender patient: A comprehensive guide. Switzerland: Springer, 2021:37-44.
5. Waljee J et al. Surgery. 2014;155:799-808.
Hormonal management of gender-diverse patients: SOC8 updates
In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.1 These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.
Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.
There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.
While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.1 Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.1
Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.1 Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.1
In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.1
Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.
Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.
There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.1 For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.1
As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
Reference
1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.1 These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.
Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.
There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.
While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.1 Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.1
Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.1 Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.1
In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.1
Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.
Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.
There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.1 For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.1
As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
Reference
1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
In September, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released its much-anticipated standards of care (SOC8). While this update has unfortunately received intense scrutiny for its guidance about gender-diverse adolescents and youth, the SOC8 is their most evidence-based version to date. Recommendations were developed based on data from independent systematic literature reviews, background reviews, and expert opinions.1 These guidelines also recognize knowledge deficits and are intended to be flexible to meet the individual needs of transgender patients. While the scope of this column will not delve into all 258 pages of these new standards, it will highlight pertinent information on hormonal management.
Ever since the original publication of the standards of care in 1979, gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) has been considered medically necessary. The approach to GAHT depends on the patient’s goals and the age at which the patient is seeking to medically transition. Given the complexity of GAHT for transgender youth and adolescents, this article will focus primarily on adult patients.
There are a few pertinent differences in the management and monitoring of GAHT in adults. For patients assigned female at birth, testosterone is the primary modality by which patients can achieve masculinizing features. GAHT for patients assigned male at birth often consists of estrogen and an androgen-lowering medication. Like its predecessor, SOC8 recommends against prescribing ethinyl estradiol because of its marked association with thromboembolic events.
While the formulations of estrogen (oral, injectable, and patches) and hormone blockers (finasteride, spironolactone, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, and bicalutamide) are discussed in prior standards of care, SOC8 further delineates their utilization. It suggests that transdermal estrogen should be considered in transgender women over the age of 45 who are at high risk for developing a venous thromboembolism or have a previous history of thromboembolism. Furthermore, SOC8 establishes spironolactone as the mainstay for androgen blockage and discourages routine usage of bicalutamide and finasteride because of a lack of safety data and questionable efficacy.1 Even though some patients anecdotally report increased breast growth with progesterone supplementation, there is insufficient evidence to regularly prescribe progesterone for breast development.1
Both WPATH and the Endocrine Society recommend checking serum levels of sex hormones every 3 months during the first year until stable levels are achieved, then once or twice a year thereafter.1 Hormone levels should be maintained at physiologic concentrations of the targeted gender. Some patients on feminizing GAHT often request evaluation of estrone/estradiol ratios as there was an assumption that higher ratios were associated with antagonistic effects on breast development. However, recent published evidence refutes this claim and estrone/estradiol ratios need not be measured.1
In addition to monitoring sex hormone levels, providers should check the metabolic effects that can be associated with GAHT. Both testosterone and estrogen can influence lipid panels: Testosterone can increase the red blood cell count, and spironolactone may cause hyperkalemia. While the SOC7 previously encouraged assessment of these laboratory values every 3 months, the new guidelines are more flexible in the frequency of testing of asymptomatic individuals as there is no strong evidence from published studies that supports these 3-month intervals.1
Providers are responsible for informing patients about the possible effects of GAHT on fertility. Estrogen often will cause a reduction in spermatogenesis, which may be irreversible. Patients who plan on taking estrogen should be counseled regarding sperm cryopreservation prior to starting GAHT. Even though testosterone inhibits ovulation and induces menstrual suppression, patients often regain their fertility after cessation of testosterone therapy. However, given the significant knowledge deficit about long-term fertility in transmasculine patients, providers should still offer oocyte or embryo cryopreservation.
Health care providers should collaborate with surgeons regarding preoperative and postoperative GAHT. To mitigate the risk of thromboembolism, many surgeons would stop hormones 1-4 weeks before and after gender-affirming surgery. Recent evidence does not support this practice, as studies indicate no increased risk for venous thromboembolism in individuals on GAHT undergoing surgery. These studies are consistent with other well-established guidelines on preoperative management of cisgender women taking estrogen or progestins. As exogenous sex steroids are necessary for bone health in patients who undergo gonadectomy, surgeons and other health care providers should educate patients on the importance of continuing GAHT.
There are many procedures available for gender-affirming surgery. Many of these surgeries involve three regions: the face, chest/breast, and/or genitalia (both internal and external). Prior to making a surgical referral, providers should be familiar with the surgeon’s scope of practice, performance measures, and surgical outcomes.1 For the first time, the SOC8 also addresses the surgical training of the providers who offer these procedures. While gender-affirming surgery can be performed by a variety of different specialists, training and documented supervision (often by an existing expert in gender-affirming surgery) is essential. Maintaining an active practice in these procedures, tracking surgical outcomes, and continuing education within the field of gender-affirming surgery are additional requirements for surgeons performing these complex operations.1
As their name implies, the SOC8 attempts to create a standardized guide to assist practitioners caring for gender-diverse patients. It’s important for providers to be familiar with updates while also recognizing the evolving nature of this rapidly growing field.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
Reference
1. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, Version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 15. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644.
Caring for the aging transgender patient
The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.
To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.1 Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.1 Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.
Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.2 Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.2
Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.2 There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.
Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.3 While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.3
How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.3 For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.4
While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.3
Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.3
There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.5 For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.5 If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.
Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.
2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.
4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.
5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.
The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.
To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.1 Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.1 Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.
Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.2 Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.2
Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.2 There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.
Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.3 While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.3
How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.3 For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.4
While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.3
Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.3
There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.5 For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.5 If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.
Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.
2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.
4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.
5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.
The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.
To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.1 Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.1 Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.
Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.2 Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.2
Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.2 There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.
Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.3 While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.3
How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.3 For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.4
While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.3
Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.3
There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.5 For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.5 If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.
Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at obnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.
2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.
4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.
5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.
Sexual function in transfeminine patients following gender-affirming vaginoplasty
For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.1 However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,2 there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.
Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.
Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.
The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.1 However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.
It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.
During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.1,3
Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.
Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.
2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.
3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.
4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.
For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.1 However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,2 there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.
Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.
Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.
The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.1 However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.
It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.
During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.1,3
Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.
Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.
2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.
3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.
4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.
For many patients, sexual function is an important component of a healthy quality of life.1 However, to many transgender individuals, their sexual organs are often a source of gender dysphoria, which can significantly inhibit sexual activity with their partners. Patients who seek gender-affirming surgery not only hope to have these feelings of dysphoria alleviated but also desire improvement in sexual function after surgery. While the medical and psychiatric criteria for patients seeking vaginoplasty procedures are well established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health,2 there is little guidance surrounding the discourse surgeons should have regarding sexual function pre- and postsurgery.
Setting realistic expectations is one of the major challenges surgeons and patients alike face in preoperative and postoperative encounters. Patients not only are tasked with recovering from a major surgical procedure, but must also now learn their new anatomy, which includes learning how to urinate, maintain proper neovaginal hygiene, and experience sexual pleasure.
Given the permanence of these procedures and the possibility of loss of sexual function, the surgeon must ensure that patients truly comprehend the nature of the procedure and its complications. During the preoperative consultation, the surgeon must inquire about any desire for future fertility, discuss any history of pelvic radiation, epispadias, hypospadias, current erectile dysfunction, libido, comorbid medical conditions (such as diabetes or smoking), current sexual practices, and overall patient goals regarding their surgical outcome.
The vast majority of patients state they will experience a significant decrease in gender dysphoria with the removal of their current natal male genitalia.1 However, some patients have very specific preferences regarding the cosmetic appearance of vulvar structures. Others have more functional concerns about neovaginal depth and the ability to have receptive penetrative intercourse. It is important to note that not all transgender women have male partners. Furthermore, whether patients have male or female partners, some patients do not desire the ability to have penetrative intercourse and/or do not want to undergo the potential complications of a full-depth vaginoplasty. In these patients, offering a “shallow depth” vaginoplasty may be acceptable.
It is useful in the consultation to discuss a patient’s sexual partners and sexual practices in order to best determine the type of procedure that may be appropriate for a patient. In my practice, I emphasize that full-depth vaginoplasties require a lifelong commitment of dilation to maintain patency. Unlike cisgender women, patients must also douche to ensure appropriate vaginal hygiene. Regarding cosmetic preferences patients may have, it is essential to educate patients on the significant variation in the appearance of vulvar structures among both cisgender and transgender women.
During the surgical consultation, I review which structures from their natal genitalia are removed and which structures are utilized to create the neo–vulvar-vaginal anatomy. The testicles and spermatic cord are excised. The dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penile shaft and portion of the dorsal aspect of the glans penis are used to create the neoclitoris. A combination of penile shaft skin and scrotal skin is used to line the neovaginal canal. The erectile tissue of the penile shaft is also resected and the natal urethra is shortened and spatulated to create the urethral plate and urethral meatus. I also remind patients that the prostate remains intact during vaginoplasty procedures. Unless patients undergo the colonic interposition vaginoplasty and in some cases the peritoneal vaginoplasty, the neovaginal canal is not self-lubricating, nor will patients experience ejaculation after surgery. In the presurgical period, I often remind patients that the location of erogenous sensation after surgery will be altered and the method by which they self-stimulate will also be different. It is also essential to document whether patients can achieve satisfactory orgasms presurgically in order to determine adequate sexual function in the postoperative period.
It cannot be emphasized enough that the best predictor of unsatisfactory sexual function after genital gender-affirming surgery is poor sexual function prior to surgery.1,3
Retention of sexual function after gender-affirming genital surgery is common, with studies citing a range of 70%-90% of patients reporting their ability to regularly achieve an orgasm after surgery.1,4 In some cases, patients will report issues with sexual function after surgery despite having no prior history of sexual dysfunction. If patients present with complaints of postsurgical anorgasmia, the provider should rule out insufficient time for wound healing and resolution of surgery-site pain, and determine if there was an intraoperative injury to the neurovascular bundle or significant clitoral necrosis. A thorough genital exam should include a sensory examination of the neoclitoris and the introitus and neovaginal canal for signs of scarring, stenosis, loss of vaginal depth, or high-tone pelvic-floor dysfunction.
Unfortunately, if the neurovascular bundle is injured or if a patient experienced clitoral necrosis, the likelihood of a patient regaining sensation is decreased, although there are currently no studies examining the exact rates. It is also important to reassure patients that wound healing after surgery and relearning sexual function is not linear. I encourage patients to initially self-stimulate without a partner as they learn their new anatomy in order to remove any potential performance anxiety a partner could cause immediately after surgery. Similar to the approach to sexual dysfunction in cisgender patients, referral to a specialist in sexual health and/or pelvic floor physical therapy are useful adjuncts, depending on the findings from the physical exam and patient symptoms.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Garcia MM. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45:437-46.
2. Eli Coleman WB et al. “Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender non-conforming people” 7th version. World Professional Association for Transgender Health: 2012.
3. Garcia MM et al. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3:156.
4. Ferrando CA, Bowers ML. “Genital gender confirmation surgery for patients assigned male at birth” In: Ferrando CA, ed. “Comprehensive care for the transgender patient” Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020:82-92.
Mental health assessment for gender-diverse patients
Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.1 Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.
Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).2 WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.2 Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.3 This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.
For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.2 It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.
A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.3 The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.3 Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.
In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.
The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.
There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.
2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.
Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.1 Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.
Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).2 WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.2 Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.3 This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.
For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.2 It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.
A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.3 The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.3 Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.
In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.
The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.
There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.
2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.
Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.1 Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.
Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).2 WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.2 Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.3 This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.
For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.2 It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.
A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.3 The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.3 Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.
In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.
The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.
There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.
References
1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.
2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.
3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.
Urinary incontinence in transfeminine patients
Whether your patient is a cisgender female or a transfeminine patient, urinary incontinence is unfortunately common and can have a significant negative effect on a person’s quality of life. While the incidence of incontinence is relatively well established in the cisgender population, these statistics remain elusive among transfeminine individuals. Many studies today currently examine cosmetic results, sexual function, and major complications rates, and are now starting to explore the long-term effects of these surgeries on the urinary tract.1
As gender-affirming surgery increases in prevalence, our knowledge regarding long-term outcomes impacting quality of life needs to subsequently improve. A few small studies have examined the rates of incontinence and urinary dysfunction among transfeminine patients. In one study, changes in voiding were reported in 32% of patients, with 19% reporting worse voiding and 19% reporting some degree of incontinence.2 A small series of 52 transgender female patients found rates of urinary urgency to be 24.6% and stress incontinence 23%.1,3 Another study of only 18 patients demonstrated a significant rate of incontinence at 33%, which was due to stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder.1,4 Other studies noted postvoid dribbling to be as high as 79%.1,2
Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with incontinence. Compared with cisgender females, risk factors for urinary incontinence in cisgender males are naturally different. For example, increasing age, parity, vaginal delivery, history of hysterectomy, and obesity are some risk factors for incontinence in cisgender women.1,6 However, in men, overall rates are lower and tend to be associated with factors such as a history of stroke, diabetes, and injury to the urethral sphincter – which can occur in radical prostatectomy.1
In addition to asking standard questions, such as caffeine use, beverage consumption, medication changes, physical activity, etc., the relationship of a patient’s symptoms to her vaginoplasty is crucial. Providers should elucidate whether patients experienced urinary symptoms prior to surgery, note the type of vaginoplasty performed, and determine if any temporal relationship exists with dilation or intercourse.
Communicating with the original surgeon and obtaining operative reports is often necessary to understand the flaps utilized and the current anatomic structures that were altered during surgery. Creation of the neovagina involves dissection through the levator ani, which can lead to neurologic injury and subsequently predispose patients to incontinence. The surgeon must be meticulous in their creation of the neovaginal space, particularly between the rectum and the prostatic urethra. As the dissection continues in a cephalad direction to the peritoneal reflection, the bladder can also suffer an iatrogenic injury.
In cases of the penile inversion vaginoplasty, a skin graft is typically used to line the neovaginal canal. If this graft fails to take appropriately it can prolapse and can contribute to urinary incontinence symptoms. Some surgeons will suspend the apical portion of the neovagina; however, the effect on rates of incontinence is mixed.
The physical exam of a transfeminine patient should consist of a general health assessment, neurological, abdominal, and genitourinary examinations. Palpation of the prostate is performed through the neovaginal canal if patent. During the urinary exam, the provider should make note of stenosis at the urethral meatus or urethral hypermobility. For patients reporting symptoms of stress incontinence, a cough stress test is useful. The neovagina should be carefully examined for fistula formation or any other structural abnormality.
Testing for urinary incontinence is similar to the evaluation in cisgender females in that every patient should undergo a urinalysis and a postvoid residual volume measurement, and should maintain a voiding diary. Indications for urodynamic testing are the same for transfeminine women and cisgender women – symptoms do not correlate with objective findings, failure to improve with treatment, prior incontinence from pelvic floor surgery, difficult diagnostic evaluation with unclear diagnosis.5,6 Cystoscopy is useful for patients experiencing hematuria, before anti-incontinence surgery, or prior to transurethral prostate intervention.1
Treatment is tailored to the type of incontinence diagnosed; however, there are no specific guidelines that are evidence-based for transfeminine patients after vaginoplasty. The therapies available are extrapolated from the general patient population. All patients can benefit from dietary modifications such as avoiding bladder irritants, monitoring fluid and caffeine intake, timed voiding, and pelvic floor exercises.1,6 If patients do not experience improvement from conservative measures, the mainstay treatment for overactive bladder is antimuscarinic agents. However, in cisgender male patients who have a prostate, these agents can lead to urinary retention related to bladder outlet obstruction, although the rates of urinary retention are low.1 Overall, these agents are relatively safe and effective in cisgender men with a prostate and by extension should be utilized in transfeminine patients when indicated.
In patients diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence, conservative options with weight loss, smoking cessation, and pelvic floor exercises should be attempted. If these measures fail in cisgender women, surgical treatment is often recommended. However, surgical treatment in transfeminine patients is significantly less straightforward and beyond the scope of this article.
Obstetrician/gynecologists are familiar with assessing and treating cisgender female patients reporting incontinence and should use this same knowledge for diagnosing and treating transfeminine patients. In addition, providers should be aware of complications of these procedures in evaluating patients presenting for symptoms of incontinence, as these complications directly contribute to incontinence in this patient population.1
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com .
References
1. Ginzburg N. Care of transgender patients: Incontinence. In: Nikolavsky D, Blakley SA, eds. Urological Care for the Transgender Patient: A Comprehensive Guide. Syracuse, NY: Springer, 2021:203-17.
2. Hoebeke P et al. Eur Urol. 2005;47(3):398-402.
3. Kuhn A et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2379-82.
4. Kuhn A et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;131(2):226-30.
5. Winters JC et al. J Urol. 2012;188(6s):2464-72.
6. Practice Bulletin No. 155. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e66-81.
Whether your patient is a cisgender female or a transfeminine patient, urinary incontinence is unfortunately common and can have a significant negative effect on a person’s quality of life. While the incidence of incontinence is relatively well established in the cisgender population, these statistics remain elusive among transfeminine individuals. Many studies today currently examine cosmetic results, sexual function, and major complications rates, and are now starting to explore the long-term effects of these surgeries on the urinary tract.1
As gender-affirming surgery increases in prevalence, our knowledge regarding long-term outcomes impacting quality of life needs to subsequently improve. A few small studies have examined the rates of incontinence and urinary dysfunction among transfeminine patients. In one study, changes in voiding were reported in 32% of patients, with 19% reporting worse voiding and 19% reporting some degree of incontinence.2 A small series of 52 transgender female patients found rates of urinary urgency to be 24.6% and stress incontinence 23%.1,3 Another study of only 18 patients demonstrated a significant rate of incontinence at 33%, which was due to stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder.1,4 Other studies noted postvoid dribbling to be as high as 79%.1,2
Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with incontinence. Compared with cisgender females, risk factors for urinary incontinence in cisgender males are naturally different. For example, increasing age, parity, vaginal delivery, history of hysterectomy, and obesity are some risk factors for incontinence in cisgender women.1,6 However, in men, overall rates are lower and tend to be associated with factors such as a history of stroke, diabetes, and injury to the urethral sphincter – which can occur in radical prostatectomy.1
In addition to asking standard questions, such as caffeine use, beverage consumption, medication changes, physical activity, etc., the relationship of a patient’s symptoms to her vaginoplasty is crucial. Providers should elucidate whether patients experienced urinary symptoms prior to surgery, note the type of vaginoplasty performed, and determine if any temporal relationship exists with dilation or intercourse.
Communicating with the original surgeon and obtaining operative reports is often necessary to understand the flaps utilized and the current anatomic structures that were altered during surgery. Creation of the neovagina involves dissection through the levator ani, which can lead to neurologic injury and subsequently predispose patients to incontinence. The surgeon must be meticulous in their creation of the neovaginal space, particularly between the rectum and the prostatic urethra. As the dissection continues in a cephalad direction to the peritoneal reflection, the bladder can also suffer an iatrogenic injury.
In cases of the penile inversion vaginoplasty, a skin graft is typically used to line the neovaginal canal. If this graft fails to take appropriately it can prolapse and can contribute to urinary incontinence symptoms. Some surgeons will suspend the apical portion of the neovagina; however, the effect on rates of incontinence is mixed.
The physical exam of a transfeminine patient should consist of a general health assessment, neurological, abdominal, and genitourinary examinations. Palpation of the prostate is performed through the neovaginal canal if patent. During the urinary exam, the provider should make note of stenosis at the urethral meatus or urethral hypermobility. For patients reporting symptoms of stress incontinence, a cough stress test is useful. The neovagina should be carefully examined for fistula formation or any other structural abnormality.
Testing for urinary incontinence is similar to the evaluation in cisgender females in that every patient should undergo a urinalysis and a postvoid residual volume measurement, and should maintain a voiding diary. Indications for urodynamic testing are the same for transfeminine women and cisgender women – symptoms do not correlate with objective findings, failure to improve with treatment, prior incontinence from pelvic floor surgery, difficult diagnostic evaluation with unclear diagnosis.5,6 Cystoscopy is useful for patients experiencing hematuria, before anti-incontinence surgery, or prior to transurethral prostate intervention.1
Treatment is tailored to the type of incontinence diagnosed; however, there are no specific guidelines that are evidence-based for transfeminine patients after vaginoplasty. The therapies available are extrapolated from the general patient population. All patients can benefit from dietary modifications such as avoiding bladder irritants, monitoring fluid and caffeine intake, timed voiding, and pelvic floor exercises.1,6 If patients do not experience improvement from conservative measures, the mainstay treatment for overactive bladder is antimuscarinic agents. However, in cisgender male patients who have a prostate, these agents can lead to urinary retention related to bladder outlet obstruction, although the rates of urinary retention are low.1 Overall, these agents are relatively safe and effective in cisgender men with a prostate and by extension should be utilized in transfeminine patients when indicated.
In patients diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence, conservative options with weight loss, smoking cessation, and pelvic floor exercises should be attempted. If these measures fail in cisgender women, surgical treatment is often recommended. However, surgical treatment in transfeminine patients is significantly less straightforward and beyond the scope of this article.
Obstetrician/gynecologists are familiar with assessing and treating cisgender female patients reporting incontinence and should use this same knowledge for diagnosing and treating transfeminine patients. In addition, providers should be aware of complications of these procedures in evaluating patients presenting for symptoms of incontinence, as these complications directly contribute to incontinence in this patient population.1
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com .
References
1. Ginzburg N. Care of transgender patients: Incontinence. In: Nikolavsky D, Blakley SA, eds. Urological Care for the Transgender Patient: A Comprehensive Guide. Syracuse, NY: Springer, 2021:203-17.
2. Hoebeke P et al. Eur Urol. 2005;47(3):398-402.
3. Kuhn A et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2379-82.
4. Kuhn A et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;131(2):226-30.
5. Winters JC et al. J Urol. 2012;188(6s):2464-72.
6. Practice Bulletin No. 155. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e66-81.
Whether your patient is a cisgender female or a transfeminine patient, urinary incontinence is unfortunately common and can have a significant negative effect on a person’s quality of life. While the incidence of incontinence is relatively well established in the cisgender population, these statistics remain elusive among transfeminine individuals. Many studies today currently examine cosmetic results, sexual function, and major complications rates, and are now starting to explore the long-term effects of these surgeries on the urinary tract.1
As gender-affirming surgery increases in prevalence, our knowledge regarding long-term outcomes impacting quality of life needs to subsequently improve. A few small studies have examined the rates of incontinence and urinary dysfunction among transfeminine patients. In one study, changes in voiding were reported in 32% of patients, with 19% reporting worse voiding and 19% reporting some degree of incontinence.2 A small series of 52 transgender female patients found rates of urinary urgency to be 24.6% and stress incontinence 23%.1,3 Another study of only 18 patients demonstrated a significant rate of incontinence at 33%, which was due to stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder.1,4 Other studies noted postvoid dribbling to be as high as 79%.1,2
Obtaining a thorough history is essential in evaluating patients with incontinence. Compared with cisgender females, risk factors for urinary incontinence in cisgender males are naturally different. For example, increasing age, parity, vaginal delivery, history of hysterectomy, and obesity are some risk factors for incontinence in cisgender women.1,6 However, in men, overall rates are lower and tend to be associated with factors such as a history of stroke, diabetes, and injury to the urethral sphincter – which can occur in radical prostatectomy.1
In addition to asking standard questions, such as caffeine use, beverage consumption, medication changes, physical activity, etc., the relationship of a patient’s symptoms to her vaginoplasty is crucial. Providers should elucidate whether patients experienced urinary symptoms prior to surgery, note the type of vaginoplasty performed, and determine if any temporal relationship exists with dilation or intercourse.
Communicating with the original surgeon and obtaining operative reports is often necessary to understand the flaps utilized and the current anatomic structures that were altered during surgery. Creation of the neovagina involves dissection through the levator ani, which can lead to neurologic injury and subsequently predispose patients to incontinence. The surgeon must be meticulous in their creation of the neovaginal space, particularly between the rectum and the prostatic urethra. As the dissection continues in a cephalad direction to the peritoneal reflection, the bladder can also suffer an iatrogenic injury.
In cases of the penile inversion vaginoplasty, a skin graft is typically used to line the neovaginal canal. If this graft fails to take appropriately it can prolapse and can contribute to urinary incontinence symptoms. Some surgeons will suspend the apical portion of the neovagina; however, the effect on rates of incontinence is mixed.
The physical exam of a transfeminine patient should consist of a general health assessment, neurological, abdominal, and genitourinary examinations. Palpation of the prostate is performed through the neovaginal canal if patent. During the urinary exam, the provider should make note of stenosis at the urethral meatus or urethral hypermobility. For patients reporting symptoms of stress incontinence, a cough stress test is useful. The neovagina should be carefully examined for fistula formation or any other structural abnormality.
Testing for urinary incontinence is similar to the evaluation in cisgender females in that every patient should undergo a urinalysis and a postvoid residual volume measurement, and should maintain a voiding diary. Indications for urodynamic testing are the same for transfeminine women and cisgender women – symptoms do not correlate with objective findings, failure to improve with treatment, prior incontinence from pelvic floor surgery, difficult diagnostic evaluation with unclear diagnosis.5,6 Cystoscopy is useful for patients experiencing hematuria, before anti-incontinence surgery, or prior to transurethral prostate intervention.1
Treatment is tailored to the type of incontinence diagnosed; however, there are no specific guidelines that are evidence-based for transfeminine patients after vaginoplasty. The therapies available are extrapolated from the general patient population. All patients can benefit from dietary modifications such as avoiding bladder irritants, monitoring fluid and caffeine intake, timed voiding, and pelvic floor exercises.1,6 If patients do not experience improvement from conservative measures, the mainstay treatment for overactive bladder is antimuscarinic agents. However, in cisgender male patients who have a prostate, these agents can lead to urinary retention related to bladder outlet obstruction, although the rates of urinary retention are low.1 Overall, these agents are relatively safe and effective in cisgender men with a prostate and by extension should be utilized in transfeminine patients when indicated.
In patients diagnosed with stress urinary incontinence, conservative options with weight loss, smoking cessation, and pelvic floor exercises should be attempted. If these measures fail in cisgender women, surgical treatment is often recommended. However, surgical treatment in transfeminine patients is significantly less straightforward and beyond the scope of this article.
Obstetrician/gynecologists are familiar with assessing and treating cisgender female patients reporting incontinence and should use this same knowledge for diagnosing and treating transfeminine patients. In addition, providers should be aware of complications of these procedures in evaluating patients presenting for symptoms of incontinence, as these complications directly contribute to incontinence in this patient population.1
Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com .
References
1. Ginzburg N. Care of transgender patients: Incontinence. In: Nikolavsky D, Blakley SA, eds. Urological Care for the Transgender Patient: A Comprehensive Guide. Syracuse, NY: Springer, 2021:203-17.
2. Hoebeke P et al. Eur Urol. 2005;47(3):398-402.
3. Kuhn A et al. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2379-82.
4. Kuhn A et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;131(2):226-30.
5. Winters JC et al. J Urol. 2012;188(6s):2464-72.
6. Practice Bulletin No. 155. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:e66-81.