ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Transmasculine patients' perspective before and after genital gender-affirming surgery.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gender-affirming care aims to reduce gender-related distress. Informational needs regarding masculinizing genital gender-affirming surgery (GGAS) remain poorly understood. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, inviting transmasculine individuals who had undergone phalloplasty or metoidioplasty. Participants rated the importance of specific topics on a 1-5 Likert scale before, during, and after surgery, reported the information they received and identified sources and preferred delivery formats. Forty-four patients were included (response rate 48.4%). Before surgery, the topics deemed of high importance (4 or 5) were possible complications, preparation of the donor site, long-term follow-up and complications and differences between surgical techniques (all 100%); written materials were the preferred format (87.5%). Participants reported important informative gaps (% importance high - %coverage), particularly regarding the management of ischemic complications (62.0%), urethral fistula (33.0%) or stenosis (32.0%), financial costs (35.0%), and the need for a structured support plan after surgery (22.0%). During hospitalization, respectful communication (95.4%), nursing experience with GGAS (100%), and clear instructions for self-care at discharge (97.7%) were deemed to be of high importance (4 or 5). In follow-up, patients emphasized guidance on prevention of injury to the neophallus (97.7%) and criteria for unscheduled visits (93.2%). These findings highlight the need for comprehensive, written, team-based counselling, and structured continuity of care to align surgical services with patient priorities.
Identifiers
42493584What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.