Background: There is an unknown percentage of transgender and gender non-confirming individuals who undergo gender-affirmation surgeries (GAS) that experiences regret. Regret could lead to physical and mental morbidity and questions the appropriateness of these procedures in selected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of regret in transgender individuals who underwent GAS and evaluate associated factors. Methods: A systematic review of several databases was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% CI <1%–2%). Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was <1% (IC <1%–<1%) and 1% (CI <1%–2%), respectively. A total of 77 patients regretted having had GAS. Twenty-eight had minor and 34 had major regret based on Pfäfflin’s regret classification. The majority had clear regret based on Kuiper and Cohen-Kettenis classification. Conclusions: Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS. We believe this study corroborates the improvements made in regard to selection criteria for GAS. However, there is high subjectivity in the assessment of regret and lack of standardized questionnaires, which highlight the importance of developing validated questionnaires in this population.

Background: Vaginoplasty aims to create a functional feminine vagina, sensate clitoris, and labia minora and majora with acceptable cosmesis. The upward trend in the number of transfemale vaginoplasties has impacted the number of published articles on this topic. Herein, we conducted an updated systematic review on complications and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: A update on our previous systematic review was conducted. Several databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus were assessed. Random effects meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed. Results: After compiling the results of the update with the previous systematic review, a total of 57 studies pooling 4680 cases were included in the systematic review, and 52 studies were used in the meta-analysis. Overall pooled data including any surgical technique showed rates of 1% [95% confidence interval (CI) <0.1%–2%] of fistula, 11% (95% CI 8%–14%) of stenosis and/or strictures, 4% (95% CI 1%–9%) of tissue necrosis, and 3% (95% CI 1%–4%) of prolapse. Overall satisfaction was 91% (81%–98%). Regret rate was 2% (95% CI <1%–3%). Average neovaginal depth was 9.4 cm (7.9–10.9 cm) for the penile skin inversion and 15.3 cm (13.8–16.7 cm) for the intestinal vaginoplasty. Conclusions: Transfemale vaginoplasty is a key component of the comprehensive surgical treatment of transfemale patients with gender dysphoria. Over time, we will see an increased demand for these procedures, so adequate surgical training, clinical/surgical experience, and research outcomes are required, as we continue to strive to provide the best care possible for a population in need.

Background: Two-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient’s demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). Specific complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, and breast infections, were not significantly different among groups. Ten (5.4%) devices, including implants and tissue expander, required explantation in the prepectoral group and 8 (6.5%) in the subpectoral group (P = 0.683). Explantation was most commonly due to infection (n = 14), and all of them occurred during the first stage (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.