Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41973214›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026

Robotic Peritoneal Flap Revision Vaginoplasty: Step-by-Step Technique: Tips & Tricks.

V Celis, V I Rodríguez, L K Fumero, L Dubey, L G Medina, M Maas, F Eskenazi, A Lusinchi, L R Doumanian, R Travieso and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. 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

11 authors.

V CelisThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
V I RodríguezThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
L K FumeroThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
L DubeyDepartment of Urology. CIMA Hospital, University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora, México.
L G MedinaThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
M MaasThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
F EskenaziThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
A LusinchiThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
L R DoumanianThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
R TraviesoDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
R SoteloThe Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Suite 7416 90089-9178, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rene.sotelo@med.usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-8476

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisPenile inversion vaginoplasty is the most common method utilized for feminizing genital reconstruction in transgender women. However, vaginoplasty has high revision rates. The most common functional reason for revision is stenosis or shortening of the vaginal canal, which can be challenging to perform.

methodsWe present the step-by-step technique of a robotic peritoneal flap revision vaginoplasty. We discuss the indications and challenges of this surgery. Detailed steps and helpful hints are included. Finally, we outline the postoperative management and expected outcomes.

resultsThe robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty revision is feasible and safe with total operative time of 3 h, and estimated blood loss of 20 ml. The postoperative pathway includes vaginal packing and Foley catheter removal, as well as discharge within the first week. Serial vaginoscopies are later performed to assess adequate healing and patency of the new perineal pouch.

conclusionsFinding a viable harvesting site after previous perineal flap surgery is feasible. The robotic revision of peritoneal flap vaginoplasty is an appropriate procedure for re-establishing vaginal canal patency and depth.

Indexed as

Gender-Affirming SurgeryReoperationRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgical FlapsVaginaFemaleHumansMalePeritoneumFeminizing genital reconstructionPeritoneal flapRobotic surgerySurgical techniqueTransgenderVaginoplasty

Identifiers

PMID41973214
PMCPMC13384993

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.