Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patientcentered Outcomes (Part 1: Breast/Chest, Face, and Voice)

Norah Oles, Halley Darrach, Wilmina Landford, Matthew Garza, Claire Twose, Chanjun S. Park, Phuong Tran, Loren S. Schechter, Brandyn Lau, Devin Coon

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To perform the first systematic review of all available genderaffirming surgery (GAS) publications across all procedures to assess both outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment. Summary of Background Data: Rapidly increasing clinical volumes of gender-affirming surgeries have stimulated a growing need for high-quality clinical research. Although some procedures have been performed for decades, each individual procedure has limited data, necessitating synthesis of the entire literature to understand current knowledge and guide future research. Methods: A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify all outcomes measures in GAS cohorts, including PCOs, complications, and functional outcomes. Outcome data were pooled to assess currently reported complication, satisfaction, and other outcome rates. Results: Overall, 15,186 references were identified, 4162 papers advanced to abstract review, and 1826 underwent full-text review. After review, there were 406 GAS cohort publications. Of non-genitoplasty titles, 35 were mastectomy, 6mammoplasty, 21 facial feminization, and 31 voice/cartilage. Although 59.1% of non-genitoplasty papers addressed PCOs in some form, only 4.3% used instruments partially-validated in transgender patients. Overall, data were reported heterogeneously and were biased towards high-volume centers. Conclusions: This study represents the most comprehensive review of GAS literature. By aggregating all previously utilized measurement instruments, this study offers a foundation for discussions about current methodologic limitations and what dimensions must be included in assessing surgical success. We have assembled a comprehensive list of outcome instruments; this offers an ideal starting basis for emerging discussions between patients and providers about deficiencies which new, better instruments and metrics must address. The lack of consistent use of the same outcome measures and validated GAS-specific instruments represent the 2 primary barriers to highquality research where improvement efforts should be focused.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E52-E66
JournalAnnals of surgery
Volume275
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2022

Keywords

  • Breast augmentation
  • Chest masculinization
  • Facial feminization
  • Functional outcomes of surgery
  • Gender confirmation surgery
  • Gender-affirming surgery
  • Mastectomy
  • Meta-analysis
  • Outcomes measures
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Plastic surgery
  • Reconstructive surgery
  • Surgical complication
  • Systematic review
  • Thryrochondroplasty
  • Top surgery
  • Transgender

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patientcentered Outcomes (Part 1: Breast/Chest, Face, and Voice)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this