Improved Surgical Outcome with Double Incision and Free Nipple Graft in Gender Confirmation Mastectomy.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open
ISSN: 2169-7574
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101622231
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
28
12
2020
accepted:
14
04
2021
entrez:
19
7
2021
pubmed:
20
7
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mastectomy and chest-wall contouring is the most common gender confirmation surgery. With increasing prevalence of transgender individuals, there is a demand for better surgical outcomes and aesthetic results. Our aim was to evaluate surgical techniques used and assess modifications in gender confirmation mastectomies at Karolinska University hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. A retrospective cohort study was performed on 464 patients undergoing gender confirmation mastectomies in our department between 2009 and 2018. Patient demographics, psychiatric comorbidity, surgical method, and outcome were analyzed. Follow-up was at least one year. The most frequently used surgical technique for gender confirmation mastectomies was double incision with free nipple graft (243 patients, 52.4%), followed by periareolar incision (113 patients, 24.4%) and semicircular incision (67 patients, 14.4%). The double incision technique and periareolar technique were associated with 18.9% and 28.3% complications, 3.3% and 12.4% acute reoperations, 28.4% and 65.5% secondary revisions, respectively. The double incision technique increased from being used in 17.8% of all mastectomies during 2009-2013 to 62.9% during 2014-2018, while periareolar incision decreased from 43.0% to 18.5%. The current study describes a successful transition of surgical technique from periareolar incision to double incision with free nipple graft in gender confirmation mastectomy, leading to significant improvements in the overall outcome with fewer complications, less acute reoperations and less secondary corrections. Hence, we consider the double incision with free nipple graft technique to be the favored technique in the vast majority of cases in female-to-male chest wall contouring.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mastectomy and chest-wall contouring is the most common gender confirmation surgery. With increasing prevalence of transgender individuals, there is a demand for better surgical outcomes and aesthetic results. Our aim was to evaluate surgical techniques used and assess modifications in gender confirmation mastectomies at Karolinska University hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was performed on 464 patients undergoing gender confirmation mastectomies in our department between 2009 and 2018. Patient demographics, psychiatric comorbidity, surgical method, and outcome were analyzed. Follow-up was at least one year.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most frequently used surgical technique for gender confirmation mastectomies was double incision with free nipple graft (243 patients, 52.4%), followed by periareolar incision (113 patients, 24.4%) and semicircular incision (67 patients, 14.4%). The double incision technique and periareolar technique were associated with 18.9% and 28.3% complications, 3.3% and 12.4% acute reoperations, 28.4% and 65.5% secondary revisions, respectively. The double incision technique increased from being used in 17.8% of all mastectomies during 2009-2013 to 62.9% during 2014-2018, while periareolar incision decreased from 43.0% to 18.5%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The current study describes a successful transition of surgical technique from periareolar incision to double incision with free nipple graft in gender confirmation mastectomy, leading to significant improvements in the overall outcome with fewer complications, less acute reoperations and less secondary corrections. Hence, we consider the double incision with free nipple graft technique to be the favored technique in the vast majority of cases in female-to-male chest wall contouring.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34277315
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003628
pmc: PMC8277259
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e3628Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: All the authors have no financial interest in relation to the content of this article.
Références
Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Nov;83(5):589-593
pubmed: 31082837
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Feb;68(2):184-91
pubmed: 25455292
Semin Plast Surg. 2011 Aug;25(3):229-44
pubmed: 22851915
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Aug 18;8(8):e3070
pubmed: 32983812
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Jun;41(3):507-516
pubmed: 28341946
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 22;6(2):e16885
pubmed: 21364939
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Apr;139(4):873e-882e
pubmed: 28350658
Scand J Surg. 2017 Mar;106(1):74-79
pubmed: 27107053
J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2014 Dec;48(6):362-7
pubmed: 24611803
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Apr;41(2):369-374
pubmed: 28175969
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Mar;121(3):849-859
pubmed: 18317134
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Aug;96(2):386-91
pubmed: 7624412
Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;30(6):807-15
pubmed: 26021270
Ann Plast Surg. 1995 Jan;34(1):59-66
pubmed: 7702303
Balkan Med J. 2017 Apr 5;34(2):147-155
pubmed: 28418342
J Sex Med. 2012 Dec;9(12):3148-53
pubmed: 23035854
J Sex Med. 2014 Dec;11(12):2976-85
pubmed: 25155247
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Jun;65(6):711-9
pubmed: 22189204