MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309158364 · doi:10.1002/nau.25091

Gender‐affirming vaginoplasty: Technical considerations in patients with genital skin deficiency

2022· review· en· W4309158364 on OpenAlexaff
Jason B. Huang, Andrew Lai, Luca Morgantini, John B. Smith, Alexandra Millman, Janneth Alejandra Pérez Cedeño, Simone Crivellaro, Ömer Acar, Ervin Kocjancic

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaginoplastyGender dysphoriaSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyVaginaTransgender

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Gender dysphoria affects over 1 million American adults. Vaginoplasty is a critical step in gender affirmation, and many patients have insufficient genital skin for full-depth penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV). We reviewed the literature for technical considerations addressing this and present our data supporting the use of peritoneal flaps (Davydov technique). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive review of modern literature was conducted. Second, we present a retrospective case review of our experience with PIV, including data from procedures utilizing peritoneal flaps. RESULTS: We identified 20 original articles, including retrospective and prospective case and cohort studies. Approaches included the application of local soft tissue grafts and flaps, peritoneal flaps, and intestinal segments. Between June 2018 and February 2021, 47 patients at our institution, underwent PIV for the treatment of gender dysphoria. Nineteen of those patients underwent robotic-assisted peritoneal flap procedure in addition to PIV. In this cohort, the mean follow-up was 200.6 ± 124.8 days. Mean neovaginal depth was 13.1 ± 3.0 cm intra-operatively and 11.0 cm at the last follow-up. Twenty-six percent of complications were Clavien Grade 1 or 2; others included wound dehiscence (30.4%), perianal and urethral fistula (13.0%), and neovaginal stenosis (8.7%). The majority of patients reported satisfactory results in terms of sexual function with intact tactile and erogenous sensation. Almost half were able to have penetrative vaginal intercourse at the last follow-up. We did not aim to perform statistical calculations to compare the outcomes of PIV with and without robotic-assisted peritoneal flap augmentation, as the groups were not constructed in that manner. However, it is evident that anatomical and functional results as well as the distribution of postoperative complications seem similar. CONCLUSION: Vaginoplasty is indicated in a growing population of patients with a wide range of medical histories and anatomic variations. Genitourinary reconstructive surgeons must have several methods to achieve full-depth vaginoplasty in cases of inadequate genital skin. Peritoneal flaps serve as a versatile, safe, and functionally advantageous solution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207