Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37969769›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2023

Penile and testicular prosthesis following gender-affirming phalloplasty and scrotoplasty: a narrative review and technical insights.

Michele Fascelli, Finn Hennig, Geolani W Dy

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Gender-Affirming Phalloplasty: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Review
  3. Testicular Implant Complications after Transmasculine Gender Affirming Surgery.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michele FascelliDepartment of Urology, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.
Finn HennigDepartment of Urology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Geolani W DyDepartment of Urology, Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR, USA.
Oregon Health & Science University · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals may seek gender-affirming phalloplasty with specific functional goals, including erectile function sufficient for penetrative sexual intercourse. Individuals seeking penile prosthesis placement must accept the potential risks to their phallic anatomy. Methods: We review current practices at our center and narrative review of literature discussing techniques for penile prosthesis and testicular prosthesis placement after phalloplasty and scrotoplasty, as well as surgical outcomes, and quality of life outcomes where available. Key Content and Findings: Early discussion of a staged approach to phallic construction with a last step of implant placement is important during initial phalloplasty counseling. Pre-operative counseling at our multi-disciplinary center includes: discussion of surgical history, complications, goals and priorities; physical exam to evaluate phallic size and position, scrotal size, and other anatomic findings that may influence prosthesis selection; urinary evaluation, including uroflowmetry with post-void residual, and a cystoscopy with retrograde urethrogram if indicated based on symptoms or urinary studies, and discussion of surgical risks, benefits and alternatives. Although none of the commercially available penile prosthesis devices in the United States are designed for phalloplasty, modern inflatable and malleable prostheses are adapted for use in the post-phalloplasty setting. Due to the lack of native corpora cavernosa, highly variable phallic anatomy, and the need to adapt implants designed for natal penile anatomy, complication rates of prosthesis placement after phalloplasty remain high, with reported ranges of complications from 20% to 80%. Conclusions: Major complications requiring surgical revision are common relative to implant placement in natal penile anatomy, and include: infection requiring explantation, device extrusion, erosion, migration or malposition, inadequate rigidity, poor aesthetic result, pain, decrease or loss of erogenous and/or tactile sensation, device failure, injury to the urethra, and injury to the neurovascular supply of the penis with resultant partial or complete flap loss. This broad range of complication rates represents the variability with which results are reported and reflect a lack of clear reporting guidelines, significant variability in techniques, and need for more standardization. To optimize outcomes, it is important that surgeons have an in-depth understanding of phalloplasty anatomy and are equipped to manage potential complications in the short- and long-term.

Indexed as

erectile prosthesisGender affirming surgeryphalloplasty

Identifiers

PMID37969769
PMCPMC10643390
OpenAlexW4388200812

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.