Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Male-to-Female Vaginoplasty-Where We Are Today: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: There is an increased need for evidence-based practices in male-to-female (MtF) transgender vaginoplasty. Although there are a multitude of surgical techniques, there is a paucity of data comparing these procedures. A systematic review of retrospective studies on the outcomes of MtF vaginoplasty was conducted to minimize surgical complications and improve patient outcomes for transgender patients.

Methods: Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, a comprehensive search of several databases from 1985 to November 7, 2017, was conducted. The databases included PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. The resulting publications were screened, and those that met our specified inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to pool complications and patient-reported outcomes.

Results: A total of 471 articles were initially identified, of which 46 met our eligibility criteria. A total of 3716 cases were analyzed. Overall incidence of complications included the following: 2% (1%-6%) fistula, 14% (10%-18%) stenosis and strictures, and 1% (0%-6%) tissue necrosis, and 4% (2%-10%) prolapse (upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval). Patient-reported outcomes included a satisfaction rate of 93% (79%-100%) with overall results, 87% (75%-96%) with functional outcomes, and 90% (79%-98%) with esthetic outcomes. Ability to have orgasm was reported in 70% (54%-84%) of patients. The regret rate was 1% (0%-3%). The length of the vaginal cavity was 12.5 cm (6.3-4.4 cm).

Conclusions: Multiple surgical techniques have demonstrated safe and reliable means of MtF vaginoplasty with low overall complication rates and with a significant improvement in the patient's quality of life. Studies using different techniques in a similar population and standardized patient-reported outcomes are required to further analyze outcomes among the different procedures and to establish best-practice guidelines.