Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38792302›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024

Tissue Options for Construction of the Neovaginal Canal in Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty.

Nicholas C Bene, Peter C Ferrin, Jing Xu, Geolani W Dy, Daniel Dugi, Blair R Peters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Gender Affirming Revision Vaginoplasty Utilizing Decellularized Fish Skin Xenograft: Surgical Technique and Outcomes.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

6 authors.

Nicholas C BeneDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Peter C FerrinDepartment of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-9006-2452
Jing XuDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Geolani W DyTransgender Health Program, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Daniel DugiTransgender Health Program, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Blair R PetersDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3902-2293

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gender-affirming vaginoplasty (GAV) comprises the construction of a vulva and a neovaginal canal. Although technical nuances of vulvar construction vary between surgeons, vulvar construction is always performed using the homologous penile and scrotal tissues to construct the corresponding vulvar structures. Therefore, the main differentiating factor across gender-affirming vaginoplasty techniques is the tissue that is utilized to construct the neovaginal canal. These tissue types vary markedly in their availability, histology, and ease of harvest and have different advantages and disadvantages to their use as neovaginal lining. In this narrative review, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the tissue types and associated operative approaches used for construction of the neovagina in GAV. Tissue choice is guided by several factors, such as histological similarity to natal vaginal mucosa, tissue availability, lubrication potential, additional donor site morbidity, and the specific goals of each patient. Skin is used to construct the neovagina in most cases with a combination of pedicled penile skin flaps and scrotal and extra-genital skin grafts. However, skin alternatives such as peritoneum and intestine are increasing in use. Peritoneum and intestine are emerging as options for primary vaginoplasty in cases of limited genital skin or revision vaginoplasty procedures. The increasing number of gender-affirming vaginoplasty procedures performed and the changing patient demographics from factors such as pubertal suppression have resulted in rapidly evolving indications for the use of these differing vaginoplasty techniques. This review sheds light on the use of less frequently utilized tissue types described for construction of the neovaginal canal, including mucosal tissues such as urethral and buccal mucosa, the tunica vaginalis, and dermal matrix allografts and xenografts. Although the body of evidence for each vaginoplasty technique is growing, there is a need for large prospective comparison studies of outcomes between these techniques and the tissue types used to line the neovaginal canal to better define indications and limitations.

Indexed as

gender-affirming surgerygender-affirming vaginoplastyintestinal vaginoplastypenile inversion vaginoplastyrevision vaginoplastyrobotic-assisted peritoneal flap vaginoplastyvaginal reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID38792302
PMCPMC11122258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.