Citation
Salibian AA, Schechter LS, Kuzon WM, Bouman MB, van der Sluis WB, Zhao LC, Bluebond-Langner R. Vaginal Canal Reconstruction in Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty with Flaps, Peritoneum, or Skin Grafts: Where Is the Evidence? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021 Apr 1;147(4):634e-643e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007779. PMID: 33776039.
Abstract
To optimize neovaginal dimensions, several modifications of the traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty are described. Options for neovaginal lining include skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneum. Implications of these techniques on outcomes remain limited. A systematic review of recent literature was performed to assess evidence on various vaginal lining options as adjunct techniques in penile inversion vaginoplasty. Study characteristics, neovaginal depth, donor-site morbidity, lubrication, and complications were analyzed in conjunction with expert opinion. Eight case series and one cohort study representing 1622 patients used additional skin grafts when performing penile inversion vaginoplasty. Neovaginal stenosis ranged from 1.2 to 12 percent, and neovaginal necrosis ranged from 0 to 22.8 percent. Patient satisfaction with lubrication was low in select studies. Three studies used scrotal flaps to line the posterior vaginal canal. Average neovaginal depth was 12 cm in one study, and neovaginal stenosis ranged from 0 to 6.3 percent. In one study of 24 patients, urethral flaps were used to line the neovagina. Neovaginal depth was 11 cm and complication rates were comparable to other series. Two studies used robotically assisted peritoneal flaps with or without skin grafts in 49 patients. Average neovaginal depth was approximately 14 cm, and complication rates were low. Skin grafts, scrotal flaps, urethral flaps, and peritoneal flaps may be used to augment neovaginal canal dimensions with minimal donor-site morbidity. Further direct comparative data on complications, neovaginal depth, and lubrication are needed to assess indications in addition to advantages and disadvantages of the various lining options.
Key Points
- Published in Plastic and reconstructive surgery in 2021.
- Indexed in PubMed as PMID 33776039.
- Mapped to Urethral Stricture & Urethroplasty, Gender-Affirming Surgery, Robotic & Single-Port.
- Abstract available from PubMed and rendered as static text on this page.
Clinical Relevance
This publication supports a focused body of work on gender-affirming surgery, including patient-centered outcomes, robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty, complications, revisions, and measurement of surgical quality.