Outcomes Following Gender Affirming Phalloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Phalloplasty is one of the genital genders affirming surgeries sought by transmasculine transgender patients during transition. Despite current advances in surgical techniques, the lack of consistency in outcomes evaluation for phalloplasty leads to significant challenges in guiding patients in clinical decision making. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess outcomes for different phalloplasty surgical techniques. METHODS: The literature was searched using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE; PubMed), Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. All English-language randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case series, and case reports of at least 4 patients were included. The primary outcome was postoperative complications, and the secondary outcomes were functional and aesthetic results. Proportional meta-analysis was used to pool complication rates using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Database searching generated 39 final articles, with 19 case series, 3 cross-sectional studies, and 17 retrospective cohort studies. A total of 1731 patients underwent phalloplasty, with the most common type of reconstruction performed being the radial forearm free flap (75.1%). Overall complication rate was high at 76.5%, of which urethral complications were high in all reconstructive subgroups (urethral fistula rate of 34.1% and urethral stricture rate of 25.4%). Postoperative functional outcomes were reported in 57.6% of patients, finding that most had tactile sensation (93.9%) and can void while standing (92.2%). Aesthetic outcomes were only reported in 6.3% of patients, with mean length achieved being 12.26 cm (SD = 0.81 cm) and mean circumference being 10.18 cm (SD = 3.69 cm). CONCLUSION: In the transmasculine transgender population, current evidence of the various phalloplasty surgical techniques and their expected postoperative outcomes is weak. Future research may consider developing a standardized core outcome set to improve clinical decision making. Wang AMQ, Tsang V, Mankowski P, et al. Outcomes Following Gender Affirming Phalloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:499-512.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".