Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40343481›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025

A Comparative Analysis of Full and Partial Gender-Affirming Facial Surgeries Surgical Complications and Trends: Insights from a NSQIP Study.

Amitai S Miller, Peter Willenborg, Clay B Beagles, Kavitha Ranganathan, Elie P Ramly, Devin Coon, Branko Bojovic, Ryan P Cauley, Martin R Buta, Oren Ganor

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Amitai S MillerHarvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA, USA. Amiller@hms.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6130-6810
Peter WillenborgHarvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Clay B BeaglesHarvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Kavitha RanganathanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Elie P RamlyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Devin CoonDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Branko BojovicDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Ryan P CauleyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Martin R ButaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Oren GanorDepartment of Plastic and Oral Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGender-affirming facial surgery (GAFS) can be performed as a full, single-staged procedure (F-GAFS) or in multiple, partial stages (P-GAFS). P-GAFS addresses either the upper, middle, or lower facial thirds, while F-GAFS includes procedures performed on multiple facial regions during a single anesthetic event. This study assesses the safety profile of GAFS, comparing surgical complications between F-GAFS and P-GAFS.

methodsData from the NSQIP databases spanning 2012-2022 were analyzed. Surgical complications included return to the operating room, hospital readmission, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, and wound dehiscence. T-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess the relationship between complications and patient and surgical characteristics.

resultsA total of 552 patients underwent GAFS, with 193 (35.0%) undergoing P-GAFS and 359 (65.0%) undergoing F-GAFS. The prevalence of GAFS increased by 1725% over the ten-year study period. Nineteen patients (3.4%) had surgical complications. Fifteen patients had surgical site infections, three had bleeding requiring transfusion, and one had a pulmonary embolism. There were complications in 2.1% of P-GAFS patients (n = 4) and 4.2% of F-GAFS patients (n = 15). No statistically significant difference in complication rates was observed between F-GAFS and P-GAFS. Undergoing genioplasty was associated with increased complication risk (p = 0.02).

conclusionsOur findings underscore the increasing popularity of GAFS while also highlighting the safety of both F-GAFS and P-GAFS for transgender and gender-diverse patients. These results support informed decision-making to optimize aesthetic goals and mitigate complications. Insurers should guarantee coverage for both approaches, providing surgeons and patients the most flexibility in choosing a surgical strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors   www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

FaceGender-Affirming SurgeryPostoperative ComplicationsAdultDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesYoung AdultFacial feminizationGender-affirming facial surgeryGender-affirming surgeryOutcomesSurgical complicationsTransgenderTrends

Identifiers

PMID40343481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.