Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35317453›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2022

Facial Feminization Surgery: A Systematic Review of Perioperative Surgical Planning and Outcomes.

Abigail R Tirrell, Areeg A Abu El Hawa, Jenna C Bekeny, Brian L Chang, Gabriel Del Corral

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Complication Rates in Facial Feminization Surgery: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pain mechanisms in the transgender individual: a review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Abigail R TirrellGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
Areeg A Abu El HawaGeorgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
Jenna C BekenyDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Brian L ChangDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.
Gabriel Del CorralDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Facial feminization is a critical step in a transfeminine patient's surgical transition. However, the existing literature on the various types of feminization surgeries suffers from inadequate reporting on perioperative aspects of care, such as preoperative evaluation and postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate facial feminization surgery (FFS), preoperative planning, and patient reported outcomes after various types of procedures. Methods: An electronic database search of Ovid MEDLINE was completed according to PRISMA guidelines for articles pertaining to FFS. Study characteristics, operative information, and patient demographics were collected. Data concerning preoperative imaging, virtual simulation, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected and analyzed for patterns. Results: A total of 22 papers representing 1302 patients were included for analysis. The most commonly discussed operations included upper face procedures, particularly of the forehead (17 studies, 77%). When discussed, preoperative planning for FFS included standard photography in 19 (86%) studies, advanced imaging, such as cephalometry or computed tomography, in 12 (55%) studies, and virtual simulation of surgical outcomes in four (18%) studies. Patient-centered outcomes, such as postoperative satisfaction, were described in 17 (77%) studies. Standardized PROMs were heterogenous across included studies with only 11 (50%) including at least one PROM. Conclusions: FFS is common, safe, and highly satisfying for transfeminine patients seeking surgical intervention for identity actualization. Future research concerning transgender care must evaluate advanced surgical planning and 3D simulation combined with more standardized assessment of PROMs to ensure high-quality analysis of patient satisfaction.

Identifiers

PMID35317453
PMCPMC8929523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.