Skip to main content

Principles of Genital Reconstruction

Genital reconstruction encompasses a broad spectrum of procedures spanning oncologic resection, trauma and infection, congenital anomalies, and gender-affirming surgery, all unified by core reconstructive principles: restoring form and function, preserving or creating sensation, minimizing donor site morbidity, and matching the technique to the individual patient's anatomy, goals, and clinical context.[1][2][3][4]

Part I: Overarching reconstructive principles​

Principle 1 — The reconstructive ladder applied to genital defects​

Genital reconstruction follows the same reconstructive hierarchy used elsewhere in the body — progressing from simple to complex based on defect characteristics:[4][5][6]

  1. Primary closure — for small defects with adequate local tissue.
  2. Skin grafts (split-thickness or full-thickness) — for superficial defects with a well-vascularized wound bed (e.g., scrotal reconstruction after Fournier's gangrene).
  3. Local / regional flaps — fasciocutaneous (pudendal thigh, lotus petal, SCIP) or musculocutaneous (gracilis) for moderate defects.
  4. Distant pedicled flaps — VRAM, ALT, or gluteal flaps for large pelviperineal defects requiring dead-space obliteration.
  5. Free tissue transfer — reserved for cases where pedicled options are exhausted or inadequate.

Selection is driven by defect size, location, depth, tissue availability, prior radiation, and functional requirements (urinary, sexual, reproductive).[7][4][6]

Principle 2 — Functional goals beyond coverage​

Unlike reconstruction elsewhere, genital reconstruction must address multiple simultaneous functional domains:[2][3][8]

  • Urinary function — maintaining or creating a functional urinary stream.
  • Sexual function — preserving or creating erogenous sensation and enabling sexual activity.
  • Aesthetic appearance — restoring gender-congruent external anatomy.
  • Psychological well-being — body image, self-esteem, and gender congruence.
  • Protective function — coverage of exposed structures (testes, urethra, pelvic organs).

Principle 3 — Neurovascular preservation is paramount​

Across all genital reconstruction, preservation of neurovascular pedicles is the single most important technical principle for maintaining sensation and sexual function. In vaginoplasty, the dorsal neurovascular bundle of the penis is preserved to create a sensate neoclitoris.[3][9] In phalloplasty, the medial and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerves of the radial forearm flap are coapted to the dorsal clitoral nerve and ilioinguinal nerve to provide both protective and erogenous sensation.[1][2][9]

Part II: Masculinizing genital reconstruction (phalloplasty)​

Principle 4 — The ideal phalloplasty: goals first described by Gillies (1946)​

The optimal objectives of phalloplasty, originally articulated by Sir Harold Gillies and refined over decades, remain the benchmark:[1][2][9][10]

  1. A naturally aesthetic neophallus of adequate size.
  2. Standing micturition through a functional neourethra.
  3. Tactile and erogenous sensation.
  4. Coital ability (penetrative intercourse via erectile device).
  5. Minimal donor site morbidity.
  6. Ideally accomplished in a single stage (though staging is often necessary).

No single technique consistently achieves all six goals, necessitating an individualized approach based on patient priorities, body habitus, and surgeon expertise.[1][2][10]

Principle 5 — Flap selection for phalloplasty​

The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) is the most widely used and best-described technique and is considered the current preferred approach for total phalloplasty:[1][11][2][12]

FlapAdvantagesDisadvantages
Radial forearm free flap (RFFF)Thin, pliable; allows tube-in-tube neourethra; reliable sensation; single-stage possibleVisible forearm donor scar; requires microsurgical expertise; limited tissue in thin patients
Anterolateral thigh (ALT)Concealable donor site; robust tissue; pedicled optionOften too bulky (requires debulking); higher stricture rates with tube-in-tube
Fibula osteocutaneousIntrinsic rigidity (no prosthesis needed); good for penetrative intercourseDonor-site morbidity; limited skin paddle; complex dissection
Latissimus dorsiLarge skin paddle; concealable donor siteBulky; poor sensation; requires microsurgery
Suprapubic / abdominal (pedicled)No microsurgery; concealable scarLimited sensation; staged; cannot create tube-in-tube urethra easily
[1][13][2][10][12][14]

Principle 6 — Neourethral reconstruction is the most challenging component​

Neourethra creation is the most technically demanding and complication-prone aspect of phalloplasty. Urethral complications (stricture and fistula) occur in at least 40% of cases and are the primary source of morbidity.[11][15][16][17]

Three main strategies exist for urethral lengthening:[18]

  1. Single-stage phalloplasty with tube-in-tube urethroplasty — the RFFF is designed with a de-epithelialized strip separating the inner urethral tube from the outer phallus tube. Advantages: single-stage completion. Disadvantages: higher stricture rates at the junction between the pars fixa (perineal urethra) and pars pendulans (penile urethra).
  2. Two-stage, metoidioplasty-first — Stage 1 creates the perineal urethra via metoidioplasty; Stage 2 adds the phallus with penile urethra. This separates the two most complication-prone anastomoses into different operations.
  3. Two-stage, phalloplasty-first ("Big Ben method") — Stage 1 creates the phallus without urethral lengthening; Stage 2 performs vaginectomy and urethral lengthening. Berli et al. reported 8% stricture and 16.4% fistula rates with this approach — potentially lower than single-stage techniques — with 96% standing urination and 96% satisfaction.[19]

A meta-analysis of 1,566 patients found a pooled urethral-fistula-or-stenosis rate of 48.9%, standing voiding in 91.5%, and patient satisfaction of 90.5%.[17] Robinson et al.'s multicenter patient-reported survey (129 patients) found even higher complication rates — 40% fistula, 32% stricture, and 19% worsened mental health — suggesting surgeon-reported rates may underestimate true complication burden.[16][20]

Principle 7 — Erectile device implantation​

Penile prosthesis placement is typically performed 9–12 months after phalloplasty to allow complete flap healing and neurotization.[11] Key principles unique to the neophallus:[21][22][23][24]

  • No corporal bodies exist — the surgeon must create a channel within the neophallus for the cylinder(s).
  • Proximal anchoring to the pubic bone is required (bone-anchored rear-tip extender) to prevent migration.[25]
  • Cylinder wrapping with synthetic material (Gore-Tex) or allograft creates a neotunica to reduce erosion risk.[24]
  • Three-piece inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) are most commonly used.[23]
  • 5-year IPP retention rates in neophallus are 42–78%, lower than in the anatomic penis.[23]
  • Revision rates are high — 16–70% depending on series — with infection, migration, and mechanical failure as primary causes.[22][24][25]
  • Despite high revision rates, 80–100% of patients report satisfaction with outcomes.[24][26]

A 2026 Delphi consensus protocol (21 experts) established standardized recommendations for pre-, peri-, and postoperative care of penile implants after phalloplasty, emphasizing the need for specific knowledge of neophallus anatomy distinct from native penile prosthesis surgery.[21]

Part III: Feminizing genital reconstruction (vaginoplasty)​

Principle 8 — Creating a functional vulvovaginal complex​

The goals of feminizing vaginoplasty are to create:[3][27][28]

  1. An aesthetic vulva with labia majora, labia minora, clitoral hood, and neoclitoris.
  2. A functional vaginal canal of adequate depth and width for receptive intercourse.
  3. Erogenous clitoral sensation via preserved dorsal neurovascular bundle.
  4. A downward-directed urinary stream.

Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) remains the most commonly performed technique and is considered the gold standard.[3][29] The procedure involves:

  • Orchiectomy and penectomy with preservation of the dorsal neurovascular pedicle.
  • Penile skin inversion to line the neovaginal canal.
  • Scrotal skin used to create labia majora (preoperative electrolysis recommended to prevent intravaginal hair growth).[30]
  • Glans penis preserved on its neurovascular pedicle and repositioned as the neoclitoris.
  • Urethral shortening and spatulation for a feminine meatal position.

Principle 9 — Tissue options for the neovaginal canal​

The main differentiating factor across vaginoplasty techniques is the tissue used to line the neovaginal canal:[31][32]

TissueTechniqueNeovaginal depthKey advantagesKey disadvantages
Penile skin ± scrotal graftStandard PIV10–13 cmMost established; lowest complexityLimited by available skin; no self-lubrication; stenosis 1–12%
Peritoneal flapsRobotic peritoneal vaginoplasty (RPGAV)14–14.5 cmGreater depth; self-lubrication potential; ideal for limited genital skinRequires abdominal surgery; ~1% rectovaginal fistula; ~7% stenosis
Intestinal segment (sigmoid / ileum)Intestinal vaginoplasty12–15 cmSelf-lubricating mucosa; reliable depthMajor abdominal surgery; mucus production; diversion colitis risk; odor
Urethral flapUrethral flap augmentation~11 cmNo additional donor siteLimited tissue; risk of urethral complications
[3][27][31][29][32][33][34]

Peritoneal flap vaginoplasty has gained significant traction, particularly for patients with limited genital skin (prior circumcision, pubertal suppression). Castanon et al. reported 96% satisfaction with peritoneal pull-through in 52 patients, with mean depth of 14.7 cm and minimal complications.[33] Zucchi et al.'s direct comparison found RPGAV patients reported significantly higher quality of sexual intercourse (87.5% vs. 27.3%, p=0.04) and overall sexual satisfaction compared with standard PIV.[35]

Principle 10 — Postoperative dilation is a non-negotiable commitment​

Successful recovery from vaginoplasty requires patient commitment to a rigorous dilation regimen — up to three times daily initially — to maintain neovaginal depth and width. The neovagina is lined by skin (not mucosa) and will not self-lubricate in PIV. Patients struggling with dilation should increase lubricant use, consider smaller dilators, and may benefit from pelvic floor physical therapy.[30][3]

Principle 11 — Complications of feminizing vaginoplasty​

Complication rates have been documented as high as 70%, though most are manageable without surgical intervention:[3][16]

  • Meatal stenosis — 5–16.3%.
  • Vaginal stenosis — 7–14.3%.
  • Rectovaginal fistula — ~1% (most serious).
  • Voiding dysfunction — 5.6–66% (higher in patient-reported vs. surgeon-reported data).
  • Misdirected urinary stream — 9.5–55%.

Blasdel et al. highlighted significant blind spots in complication reporting — patient-reported cohorts consistently show higher rates of voiding dysfunction, incontinence, and misdirected stream than surgeon-reported series.[16]

Part IV: Oncologic genital reconstruction​

Principle 12 — Penile cancer reconstruction: organ preservation when possible​

The reconstructive approach to penile cancer follows a tissue-sparing philosophy, progressing from conservative to radical based on tumor stage:[36]

  1. Mohs micrographic surgery — for superficial / in-situ disease (Tis, Ta); tissue-sparing with margin control.[37]
  2. Glans resurfacing — excision of glans epithelium with split-thickness skin-graft replacement.
  3. Partial glansectomy — for small glans-confined tumors.
  4. Total glansectomy with reconstruction — split-thickness skin graft over corpora.
  5. Partial penectomy — maintaining ≥2 cm functional stump for standing micturition and sexual function.
  6. Total penectomy with phalloplasty — RFFF phalloplasty with subsequent penile prosthesis for complete reconstruction.[1][36]

Principle 13 — Vulvovaginal reconstruction after oncologic resection​

The goals of vulvovaginal reconstruction after cancer resection are to:[8]

  • Create two adequately sized sensitive skin folds with sagittal symmetry.
  • Provide a sufficiently wide and elastic vaginal introitus.
  • Enable receptive coital function without dyspareunia.
  • Not disturb micturition and defecation.
  • Shorten hospital stay by avoiding large open wounds healing by secondary intention.

Reconstructive options are matched to defect size and location:[7][8][38]

  • Small vulvar defects — V-Y advancement flaps, rhomboid (Limberg) flaps.
  • Moderate defects — pudendal thigh (Singapore) flaps, lotus petal flaps, gracilis myocutaneous flaps.
  • Large pelviperineal defects (post-exenteration) — the VRAM flap (vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous) is the workhorse for combined pelvic dead-space obliteration and perineal resurfacing.[5][39][38]
  • Vaginal reconstruction — gracilis myocutaneous flaps (bilateral for circumferential neovagina), sigmoid vaginoplasty, or ALT flaps.[7][8]

An important oncologic safety principle: tissues transposed into the defect should be free of occult neoplastic disease — distant flaps fulfill this requirement, while local flaps should be raised from a different tissue compartment than the one harboring the tumor.[8]

Part V: Scrotal and perineal reconstruction​

Principle 14 — Scrotal reconstruction after Fournier's gangrene​

Fournier's gangrene reconstruction follows a specific algorithm after initial debridement and source control:[40][41][42]

  1. Small defects — scrotal advancement flaps or primary closure using residual scrotal skin.
  2. Moderate defects with exposed testes — split-thickness skin graft (STSG) after orchidopexy. Hayon et al. demonstrated acceptable cosmetic results with no chronic pain at median 8-month follow-up.[41]
  3. Large defects — regional flaps. Medial thigh, pudendal thigh, ALT, and gracilis are the most commonly used, with flap loss in only 1.6% of 625 flaps across 107 studies.[40]
  4. Testicular thigh pouches — temporary placement of testes in subcutaneous thigh pockets, generally a bridge to definitive reconstruction rather than a final solution.

The SCIP (superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator) flap has emerged as a promising option — thin, pliable, with consistent anatomy and a natural appearance resembling scrotal skin.[43][44]

Part VI: Gender-affirming surgery — eligibility and multidisciplinary care​

Principle 15 — Eligibility criteria and multidisciplinary framework​

The WPATH Standards of Care (SOC8, 2022) and Endocrine Society guidelines establish the framework for gender-affirming genital surgery:[45][9][46]

  • Persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional.
  • At least one letter of referral from a mental health professional (reduced from two in SOC7 to one in SOC8 for most procedures).[45]
  • 12 months of continuous hormone therapy (unless not desired or contraindicated).[46]
  • 12 months of continuous living in a gender role congruent with gender identity (for genital surgery).[9]
  • Age ≥18 years (or legal age of majority) for genital surgery affecting fertility.[46][9]
  • Any coexisting medical or mental health conditions must be well managed.[9]

Genital procedures for transmasculine individuals are most often performed by a multidisciplinary surgical team involving plastic, gynecologic, and urologic surgeons.[11]

Principle 16 — Shared decision-making and patient-centered goals​

The choice between metoidioplasty and phalloplasty, or between PIV and peritoneal vaginoplasty, must be driven by patient-specific goals:[11][3][10][12]

  • Patients prioritizing erogenous sensation over penetrative ability may prefer metoidioplasty (4.8/5 erogenous sensation vs. 3.4/5 for phalloplasty, p<0.05).[20]
  • Patients prioritizing penetrative intercourse require phalloplasty with subsequent prosthesis placement.
  • Patients with limited genital skin (circumcision, pubertal suppression) may benefit from peritoneal vaginoplasty over standard PIV.[33]
  • Postoperative genital self-image improves significantly after surgery (score 20.29 vs. 13.04 preoperatively, p<0.05).[20]

Cross-references​

Summary of principles​

#PrincipleKey conceptRefs
1Reconstructive ladderProgress from simple (grafts) to complex (free flaps) based on defect4, 5, 6
2Functional goals beyond coverageUrinary, sexual, aesthetic, psychological domains simultaneously2, 3, 8
3Neurovascular preservationDorsal NVB (vaginoplasty); nerve coaptation (phalloplasty)1, 3, 9
4Ideal phalloplasty goalsAesthetic phallus, standing micturition, sensation, coital ability, minimal donor morbidity1, 2, 9, 10
5RFFF as preferred phalloplasty flapThin, pliable, tube-in-tube, reliable sensation1, 2, 11, 12
6Neourethra = highest complication source40–49% fistula / stricture rate; staged approaches may reduce risk11, 15, 16, 17
7Erectile device principlesBone anchoring, neotunica wrapping, 42–78% 5-year retention21, 22, 23, 24
8PIV as vaginoplasty gold standardPenile skin inversion; glans → neoclitoris; scrotal skin → labia3, 27, 29
9Peritoneal flap for depth augmentation14+ cm depth; self-lubrication; ideal for limited genital skin29, 33, 34, 35
10Postoperative dilation commitmentNon-negotiable for maintaining neovaginal dimensions3, 30
11Oncologic: tissue-sparing penile surgeryMohs → glansectomy → partial penectomy → total + phalloplasty36, 37
12Vulvovaginal oncologic reconstructionV-Y (small) → gracilis / pudendal (moderate) → VRAM (large)7, 8, 38, 39
13Fournier's reconstruction algorithmSTSG for moderate; regional flaps for large; 1.6% flap loss40, 41, 42
14Vulvovaginal reconstruction safetyDistant flaps or different compartment; free of occult neoplastic disease8
15WPATH / Endocrine Society eligibility1 MHP letter, 12 months hormones, 12 months social role, age ≥189, 45, 46
16Shared decision-makingMatch technique to patient goals, anatomy, and support system3, 10, 11, 12, 20

References​

1. Yao A, Ingargiola MJ, Lopez CD, et al. "Total penile reconstruction: a systematic review." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(6):788–806. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.02.002

2. Morrison SD, Shakir A, Vyas KS, et al. "Phalloplasty: a review of techniques and outcomes." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3):594–615. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000002518

3. Morrison SD, Claes K, Morris MP, et al. "Principles and outcomes of gender-affirming vaginoplasty." Nat Rev Urol. 2023;20(5):308–322. doi:10.1038/s41585-022-00705-y

4. Shahzad F, Ray E. "Pelvic and perineal reconstruction." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(4):803e–816e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011137

5. Brodbeck R, Horch RE, Arkudas A, Beier JP. "Plastic and reconstructive surgery in the treatment of oncological perineal and genital defects." Front Oncol. 2015;5:212. doi:10.3389/fonc.2015.00212

6. Wong DS. "Reconstruction of the perineum." Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(Suppl 1):S74–81. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000237

7. Jędrasiak A, Juniewicz H, Raczek W, et al. "Reconstruction of the vulva and perineum — comparison of surgical methods." J Clin Med. 2025;14(13):4456. doi:10.3390/jcm14134456

8. Höckel M, Dornhöfer N. "Vulvovaginal reconstruction for neoplastic disease." Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(6):559–568. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70147-5

9. Wylie K, Knudson G, Khan SI, et al. "Serving transgender people: clinical care considerations and service delivery models in transgender health." Lancet. 2016;388(10042):401–411. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00682-6

10. Cripps C. "Thinking outside the box: alternative techniques for gender-affirming phalloplasty." Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(5):973–978. doi:10.1002/nau.25104

11. Berli JU, Knudson G, Fraser L, et al. "What surgeons need to know about gender confirmation surgery when providing care for transgender individuals: a review." JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):394–400. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5549

12. Alba B, Nolan IT, Weinstein B, et al. "Gender-affirming phalloplasty: a comprehensive review." J Clin Med. 2024;13(19):5972. doi:10.3390/jcm13195972

13. Harris TGW, Manyevitch R, Wu WJ, et al. "Pedicled anterolateral thigh and radial forearm free flap phalloplasty for penile reconstruction in patients with bladder exstrophy." J Urol. 2021;205(3):880–887. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001404

14. Robinson I, Chao BW, Blasdel G, et al. "Anterolateral thigh phalloplasty with staged skin-graft urethroplasty: technique and outcomes." Urology. 2023;177:204–212. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.038

15. Veerman H, de Rooij FPW, Al-Tamimi M, et al. "Functional outcomes and urological complications after genital gender-affirming surgery with urethral lengthening in transgender men." J Urol. 2020;204(1):104–109. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000795

16. Blasdel G, Dy GW, Nikolavsky D, et al. "Urinary reconstruction in genital gender-affirming surgery: checking our surgical complication blind spots." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153(4):792e–803e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010813

17. Hu CH, Chang CJ, Wang SW, Chang KV. "A systematic review and meta-analysis of urethral complications and outcomes in transgender men." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(1):10–24. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.006

18. Berli JU, Monstrey S, Safa B, Chen M. "Neourethra creation in gender phalloplasty: differences in techniques and staging." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(5):801e–811e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007898

19. Berli JU, Ferrin PC, Buuck C, et al. "Long-term urologic outcomes using the Big Ben method for phalloplasty." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012010

20. Robinson IS, Blasdel G, Cohen O, Zhao LC, Bluebond-Langner R. "Surgical outcomes following gender-affirming penile reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes from a multi-center, international survey of 129 transmasculine patients." J Sex Med. 2021;18(4):800–811. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.01.183

21. Levy M, Falcone M, Bohr J, et al. "Penile implants after phalloplasty in transgender individuals: a consensus-based surgical clinical protocol concerning pre-, peri-, and postoperative care." J Sex Med. 2026;23(2):qdaf365. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf365

22. Chen ML, Patel DP, Moses RA, et al. "Infrapubic insertion of penile implants in transmen after phalloplasty." Urology. 2021;152:79–83. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.026

23. Kocjancic E, Jaunarena JH, Schechter L, Acar Ö. "Inflatable penile prosthesis implantation after gender-affirming phalloplasty with radial forearm free flap." Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(1):99–106. doi:10.1038/s41443-019-0153-8

24. Zuckerman JM, Smentkowski K, Gilbert D, et al. "Penile prosthesis implantation in patients with a history of total phallic construction." J Sex Med. 2015;12(12):2485–2491. doi:10.1111/jsm.13067

25. Cohen AJ, Bhanvadia RR, Pariser JJ, et al. "Novel technique for proximal bone anchoring of penile prosthesis after radial forearm free flap neophallus." Urology. 2017;105:2–5. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.01.016

26. Pang KH, Christopher N, Ralph DJ, Lee WG. "Insertion of erectile device following phalloplasty in individuals assigned male at birth: a systematic review." J Sex Med. 2025;qdaf019. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf019

27. Ferrando CA. "Updates on feminizing genital affirmation surgery (vaginoplasty) techniques." Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(5):931–938. doi:10.1002/nau.25088

28. Blackman C, Liang F, Jun MS. "Vaginoplasty." Clin Plast Surg. 2025;52(4):463–484. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2025.06.004

29. Jacoby A, Maliha S, Granieri MA, et al. "Robotic Davydov peritoneal flap vaginoplasty for augmentation of vaginal depth in feminizing vaginoplasty." J Urol. 2019;201(6):1171–1176. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000107

30. Cronin B, Stockdale CK. "Health care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals." American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 2021.

31. Bene NC, Ferrin PC, Xu J, et al. "Tissue options for construction of the neovaginal canal in gender-affirming vaginoplasty." J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2760. doi:10.3390/jcm13102760

32. Salibian AA, Schechter LS, Kuzon WM, et al. "Vaginal canal reconstruction in penile inversion vaginoplasty with flaps, peritoneum, or skin grafts: where is the evidence?" Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(4):634e–643e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007779

33. Castanon CDG, Matic S, Bizic M, et al. "Laparoscopy-assisted peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty in transgender women." Urology. 2022;166:301–302. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.05.001

34. Dy GW, Jun MS, Blasdel G, Bluebond-Langner R, Zhao LC. "Outcomes of gender-affirming peritoneal flap vaginoplasty using the da Vinci single port versus Xi robotic systems." Eur Urol. 2021;79(5):676–683. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.040

35. Zucchi A, Maiolino G, Falcone M, et al. "Comparing sexual outcomes and complications in male-to-female gender-affirming surgery: penile inversion vs. robotic peritoneal vaginoplasty." Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01157-9

36. Bickell M, Beilan J, Wallen J, Wiegand L, Carrion R. "Advances in surgical reconstructive techniques in the management of penile, urethral, and scrotal cancer." Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43(4):545–559. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2016.06.015

37. Zhu TH, Zhu TR, Routt E, Ciocon D. "Mohs micrographic surgery for genital skin cancer: a review of cases and reconstructive techniques." J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(3):311–319. doi:10.36849/JDD.5656

38. John HE, Jessop ZM, Di Candia M, et al. "An algorithmic approach to perineal reconstruction after cancer resection — experience from two international centers." Ann Plast Surg. 2013;71(1):96–102. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182414485

39. Bini A, Stavrianos S. "Pelvic and perineal reconstruction after bowel, gynecological, or sacral tumor resection: a case series." J Clin Med. 2025;14(9):3172. doi:10.3390/jcm14093172

40. Alammar A, Laing K, Somasundaram J, Wallace DL, Rogers AD. "Flap reconstruction following Fournier's gangrene: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes." Burns. 2026;52(3):107888. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2026.107888

41. Hayon S, Demzik A, Ehlers M, et al. "Orchidopexy and split-thickness skin graft for scrotal defects after necrotizing fasciitis." Urology. 2021;152:196. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.007

42. Chen SY, Fu JP, Chen TM, Chen SG. "Reconstruction of scrotal and perineal defects in Fournier's gangrene." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(4):528–534. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2010.07.018

43. BS S, Khanna A, Taylor D. "Pedicled superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator (SCIP) flap for perineo-scrotal reconstruction following Fournier's gangrene." ANZ J Surg. 2023;93(1-2):276–280. doi:10.1111/ans.18066

44. Han HH, Lee JH, Kim SM, Jun YJ, Kim YJ. "Scrotal reconstruction using a superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap following Fournier's gangrene." Int Wound J. 2016;13(5):996–999. doi:10.1111/iwj.12353

45. Lai A, Johnson R. "World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines: 2022 surgical treatment updates in the Standards of Care for Transgender and Gender-Diverse People." Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(5):900–902. doi:10.1002/nau.25099

46. Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. "Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric / gender-incongruent persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline." J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3869–3903. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-01658