• Norah Oles, Halley Darrach, Wilmina Landford, Matthew Garza, Claire Twose, Chanjun S Park, Phuong Tran, Loren S Schechter, Brandyn Lau, and Devin Coon.
• Department of Plastic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
• Ann. Surg. 2022 Jan 1; 275 (1): e52e66e52-e66.

ObjectiveTo perform the first systematic review of all available gender-affirming surgery (GAS) publications across all procedures to assess both outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment.Summary Of Background DataRapidly increasing clinical volumes of gender-affirming surgeries have stimulated a growing need for high-quality clinical research. Although some procedures have been performed for decades, each individual procedure has limited data, necessitating synthesis of the entire literature to understand current knowledge and guide future research.MethodsA systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including PCOs, complications, and functional outcomes. Outcome data were pooled to assess currently reported complication, satisfaction, and other outcome rates.ResultsOverall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications. Of non-genitoplasty titles, 35 were mastectomy, 6 mammoplasty, 21 facial feminization, and 31 voice/cartilage. Although 59.1% of non-genitoplasty papers addressed PCOs in some form, only 4.3% used instruments partially-validated in transgender patients. Overall, data were reported heterogeneously and were biased towards high-volume centers.ConclusionsThis study represents the most comprehensive review of GAS literature. By aggregating all previously utilized measurement instruments, this study offers a foundation for discussions about current methodologic limitations and what dimensions must be included in assessing surgical success. We have assembled a comprehensive list of outcome instruments; this offers an ideal starting basis for emerging discussions between patients and providers about deficiencies which new, better instruments and metrics must address. The lack of consistent use of the same outcome measures and validated GAS-specific instruments represent the 2 primary barriers to high-quality research where improvement efforts should be focused.Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

18 keywords...

hide…