MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388036427 · doi:10.1016/j.xfnr.2023.10.002

Vaginoplasty for gender dysphoria and Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4388036427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jayson Sueters, Freek Groenman, Mark‐Bram Bouman, Jan‐Paul Roovers, Ralph de Vries, Theo H. Smit, Judith A.F. Huirne

Bibliographic record

VenueF&S Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmsterdam University Medical Centers
KeywordsGender dysphoriaVaginoplastyMayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser SyndromeTransgenderPsychologyMedicineGynecologyClinical psychologyVaginaPsychoanalysisAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Vaginoplasty is performed on approximately 20% of Dutch patients with male-to-female Gender Dysphoria (GD) and Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser Syndrome (MRKHS). Various procedures are available, but comparisons of technique outcomes are lacking. The investigators aim to aid well-informed decision making by highlighting information gaps, weaknesses, and strengths. Evidence Review: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus until October 7, 2022, by Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes method and prospectively registered systematic reviews registration. Original retrospective studies on complete neovaginal creation were included. Inclusion criteria were original, peer-reviewed articles, ≥10 adult patients with MRKHS or transfeminine, ≥6 months postvaginoplasty, and report at least one outcome (anatomy, complications, complaints, satisfaction, sexual function, or quality of life [QoL]) with 5 patients with MRKHS or transfeminine needed as isolated patient population. Exclusion criteria were merged results of patient types (with control groups) and/or vaginoplasty techniques, unspecified vaginoplasty techniques, combined treatments, or vaginoplasty as secondary procedures. Methodological quality and potential bias were assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool. Outcome assessed anatomy, QoL, satisfaction, sexual function, complications, or complaints. Results: Our search yielded 52 studies with 9 different vaginoplasty techniques. In total, 35 GD and 17 MRKHS studies were eligible. Mean vagina length was 8.3–16.2 cm and 7.6–16.4 cm, respectively. In patients with GD, hemorrhage (mean 0%–43.9%), necrosis (mean 0%–25.7%), prolapse (mean 0%–7.7%), stenosis (mean 0%–73.8%), gastrointestinal complications (mean 0%–8.3%), revisions (mean 3.2%–63.2%), pain (mean 3.1%–13.6%), discharge (mean 3.2%–6.7%), regret (mean 0%–6.5%), and fecal- (mean 3.2%–17.3%) and urinary issues (mean 1.3%–46.2%) were reported. Patients with MRKHS reported necrotic (mean 0%–16.7%) and stenotic complications (mean 0%–13.0%), discharge (mean 0%–100%), and prolapse (mean 0%–3.7%). Both patients with GD and MRKHS showed a high variation of Sexual activity (mean GD = 31.1%–86.7% and MRKHS = 21.2%–100%) and Dyspareunia (mean GD = 1.6%–50% and MRKHS = 0%–41.7%). Patients with MRKHS were more satisfied with anatomy (mean GD = 72.2%–100% and MRKHS = 100%). Conclusion: For patients with GD and MRKHS, multiple vaginoplasty techniques improve QoL and self-image with low rates of complications/complaints and high satisfaction. However, the heterogenicity of outcome-measuring methods reflects the need for standardized validation tools. Direct technique comparisons per patient cohort and exploration of tissue-engineering methods are critical for future surgical advancements and well-informed decision making. This first systematic review on 9 vaginoplasty techniques in patients with MRKHS and GD provides useful insight for patients and physicians and might aid well-informed decisions and manage realistic surgical expectations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF&S ReviewsSame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207