The Surgical Techniques and Outcomes of Secondary Phalloplasty After Metoidioplasty in Transgender Men: An International, Multi-Center Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some transgender men express the wish to undergo genital gender-affirming surgery. Metoidioplasty and phalloplasty are procedures that are performed to construct a neophallus. Genital gender-affirming surgery contributes to physical well-being, but dissatisfaction with the surgical results may occur. Disadvantages of metoidioplasty are the relatively small neophallus, the inability to have penetrative sex, and often difficulty with voiding while standing. Therefore, some transgender men opt to undergo a secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty. Literature on secondary phalloplasty is scarce. AIM: Explore the reasons for secondary phalloplasty, describe the surgical techniques, and report on the clinical outcomes. METHODS: Transgender men who underwent secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty were retrospectively identified in 8 gender surgery clinics (Amsterdam, Belgrade, Bordeaux, Austin, Ghent, Helsinki, Miami, and Montreal). Preoperative consultation, patient motivation for secondary phalloplasty, surgical technique, perioperative characteristics, complications, and clinical outcomes were recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measures were surgical techniques, patient motivation, and outcomes of secondary phalloplasty after metoidioplasty in transgender men. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were identified. The median follow-up was 7.5 years (range 0.8-39). Indicated reasons to undergo secondary phalloplasty were to have a larger phallus (n = 32; 38.6%), to be able to have penetrative sexual intercourse (n = 25; 30.1%), have had metoidioplasty performed as a first step toward phalloplasty (n = 17; 20.5%), and to void while standing (n = 15; 18.1%). Each center had preferential techniques for phalloplasty. A wide variety of surgical techniques were used to perform secondary phalloplasty. Intraoperative complications (revision of microvascular anastomosis) occurred in 3 patients (5.5%) undergoing free flap phalloplasty. Total flap failure occurred in 1 patient (1.2%). Urethral fistulas occurred in 23 patients (30.3%) and strictures in 27 patients (35.6%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A secondary phalloplasty is a suitable option for patients who previously underwent metoidioplasty. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This is the first study to report on secondary phalloplasty in collaboration with 8 specialized gender clinics. The main limitation was the retrospective design. CONCLUSION: In high-volume centers specialized in gender affirming surgery, a secondary phalloplasty in transgender men can be performed after metoidioplasty with complication rates similar to primary phalloplasty. Al-Tamimi M, Pigot GL, van der Sluis WB, et al. The Surgical Techniques and Outcomes of Secondary Phalloplasty After Metoidioplasty in Transgender Men: An International, Multi-Center Case Series. J Sex Med 2019;16:1849-1859.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".