Long-Term Evaluation of Donor-Site Morbidity After Radial Forearm Flap Phalloplasty for Transsexual Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Phalloplasty using the radial forearm flap is currently the most frequently used technique to create the neophallus in transsexual men (formerly described as female-to-male transsexual persons). Although it is considered the gold standard, its main disadvantage is the eventual donor-site morbidity in a young, healthy patient population. AIM: The study aims to examine the long-term effects of radial forearm flap phalloplasty in transsexual men and to evaluate aesthetic outcome, scar acceptance, bone health, and daily functioning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scars were evaluated with the patient and observer scar assessment scale, the Vancouver Scar Scale, and self-reported satisfaction. Bone health was assessed using dual X-ray absorptiometry and peripheral quantitative computed tomography, and daily functioning using a physical activity questionnaire (Baecke). These measurements were compared with 44 age-matched control women. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 44 transsexual, a median of 7 years after radial forearm flap phalloplasty, recruited from the Center for Sexology and Gender Problems at the Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. RESULTS: We observed no functional limitations on daily life activities, a pain-free and rather aesthetic scar, and unaffected bone health a median of 7 years after radial foreram flap phalloplasty. Over 75% of transsexual men were either satisfied or neutral with the appearance of the scar. CONCLUSIONS: Transsexual men, despite scarring the forearm, consider the radial forearm flap phalloplasty as worthwhile.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".