Feminizing Gender-Affirming Surgery
This page is focused exclusively on the genitourinary / reconstructive-urologic component of feminizing GAS — bilateral orchiectomy, vulvoplasty (zero/shallow-depth), full-depth vaginoplasty (penile-inversion, peritoneal flap, intestinal), and the component procedures within them (clitoroplasty, urethroplasty, labiaplasty). Breast / chest, facial feminization, and voice surgery sit outside the reconstructive-urologic scope and are covered in the Feminizing Procedures clinical-conditions article. Eligibility and perioperative-hormone management follow WPATH SOC v8 (2022), the Endocrine Society 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline (Hembree), and ACOG 2021.[1][2][6]
The contemporary decision anchors for genital reconstruction are the van der Sluis 2023 Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol review, the Hehemann/Walsh 2019 orchiectomy-as-bridge framework, the Stelmar 2023 shallow-depth case for offering vulvoplasty as a standard option (32% chose it over full-depth), the Opsomer 2021 Ghent 15-year n=384 series (97.2% penetrative-intercourse capable; 1.6% rectal perforation; 37.1% late revision), the Fakin 2021 single-stage-vs-two-stage RCT-grade comparison (single-stage stable depth vs >30% depth loss in two-stage), the Castanon 2022 / Jacoby 2019 / Ratanalert 2025 peritoneal-pull-through series[4][5], the Lee 2025 Neurourol Urodyn prospective LUT-function cohort (no degradation at 12 mo), the Shamamian 2025 dilation-difficulty predictor analysis, the De Rosa 2024 vaginal-stenosis SR, the Blasdel 2024 Plast Reconstr Surg "blind spots" patient-vs-surgeon-reporting analysis, and the AFFIRM (Huber 2021) validated patient-reported instrument.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
Decision Framework
Eligibility and Readiness
Per WPATH SOC v8 and the Endocrine Society 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline:[1][6]
- Persistent, well-documented gender incongruence
- At least one referral letter from a qualified mental-health provider (SOC v8 simplified the prior two-letter requirement)
- Age ≥ 18 (or local age of majority) for gonadectomy
- For gonadectomy / vaginoplasty: ≥ 12 months of consistent feminizing hormone therapy unless contraindicated
- ≥ 6 months of estradiol before isolated gonadectomy to confirm tolerability and persistent goal alignment
- Capacity to consent to the irreversibility of gonadectomy and to the lifelong dilation commitment required after full-depth vaginoplasty
Goal-Directed GU Pathway Selection
| Patient Priority | Standalone Orchiectomy | Vulvoplasty (Zero/Shallow-Depth) | Full-Depth Vaginoplasty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eliminate endogenous testosterone / reduce antiandrogens | ✓ | ✓ (included) | ✓ (included) |
| Feminine vulvar appearance only | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Receptive vaginal penetration | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
| Erogenous neoclitoral sensation | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Lowest complication burden / fastest recovery | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ (highest of the three) |
| No lifelong dilation commitment | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ (required) |
| Bridge to or option for future vaginoplasty | ✓ (preserve scrotal skin) | ✗ (donor tissue used) | n/a |
Anchors: Saltman 2023 NSQIP n = 1,005 orchiectomy-only complication 3.7% (no different from cisgender nononcologic, p = 0.6); Stelmar 2023 single-center series 32% chose shallow-depth over full-depth; van der Sluis 2020 vulvoplasty motivation analysis (59% no desire for receptive penetration; 93% satisfaction; 86% would choose again); Hehemann/Walsh 2019 orchiectomy-as-bridge framing (preserve scrotal skin if future vaginoplasty contemplated).[7][8][9][20][21]
Vaginoplasty Technique Selection
| Clinical Scenario | First-Line | Alternative(s) | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default candidate; adequate penile + scrotal skin (uncircumcised or sufficient tissue); standard depth (~14 cm) acceptable | Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) — gold standard. Eight-step Ghent technique; scrotal skin graft for depth augmentation needed in 85.7% of cases (Opsomer 2021). Single-stage preferred (Fakin 2021: wound dehiscence 4.8% vs 33.9%; reoperation 6.4% vs 56.5%; stable depth at 3.5 yr) | Robotic peritoneal-augmented PIV (Jacoby 2019: +5 cm depth) | Two-stage PIV in routine candidates; PIV alone when donor tissue is clearly insufficient |
| Insufficient penile / scrotal skin (radical circumcision, puberty-blocker exposure, lichen sclerosus, scrotal hypoplasia) | Robotic / laparoscopic peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty (Castanon 2022; Jacoby 2019; Ratanalert 2025). Castanon 2022 n = 52: depth 14.7 ± 0.5 cm, ~96% satisfaction, complications 13.5% all conservatively managed. Lee 2025: no LUT-function degradation at 12 mo | Augmentation of PIV with peritoneal flap (Jacoby) | Intestinal vaginoplasty as first-line in standard candidates (higher complication burden, mucus, rare neoplasia signal) |
| Failed primary vaginoplasty with refractory stenosis; or maximal lubrication is the explicit priority | Intestinal (sigmoid) vaginoplasty — vaginal-stenosis rate 0.20% vs 5.70% for PIV (De Rosa 2024 SR); self-lubricating mucosa | Robotic peritoneal-flap revision | Sigmoid as first-line in standard candidates (laparotomy/laparoscopy + bowel anastomosis; diversion-colitis-like inflammation; mucus burden) |
| Canal not desired | Vulvoplasty (zero- or shallow-depth) — Stelmar 2023 / van der Sluis 2020 / Jiang 2018; 93% satisfaction; 86% would choose again; 27% reoperation typically for urinary-spraying revision (82% of complications) | Standalone bilateral orchiectomy if external feminization is also deferred | Coercive canal creation; full-depth vaginoplasty when patient priorities don't include penetrative function |
| Active smoker; insufficient electrolysis | Defer vaginoplasty until smoking cessation ≥ 4–6 weeks documented and scrotal/perineal electrolysis (6–12 mo course) is complete | Standalone orchiectomy as bridge | Vaginoplasty without preoperative electrolysis (intravaginal hair growth) |
| Prior pelvic radiation | Vulvoplasty or peritoneal-flap-augmented vaginoplasty at high-volume center | Standalone orchiectomy | Sigmoid vaginoplasty in heavily irradiated bed without colorectal-surgery review |
| Concurrent persistent vaginal cavity / fistula concern | Vaginoplasty with formal closure of any retained vaginal cavity at index operation | Staged closure | Leaving a residual vaginal cavity adjacent to the neovaginal canal |
Peritoneal vs Penile-Inversion vs Intestinal Sub-Comparison
| Feature | Penile Inversion (PIV) | Peritoneal Pull-Through (Robotic) | Sigmoid (Intestinal) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth (mean) | ~14 cm (Opsomer Ghent 15-yr) | +5 cm over PIV when used as augmentation; 14.7 cm standalone (Castanon)[11][14] | 12–15 cm; bowel-length-dependent |
| Lubrication | None (squamous epithelium) | Peritoneal serous secretion (modest, self-lubricating) | Mucinous (ample; may require panty-liner) |
| Donor-tissue requirement | Penile + scrotal skin (graft needed in 85.7%) | None — peritoneum ample | 15–20 cm sigmoid bowel segment |
| Microsurgery / robotics | None | Robotic platform (Da Vinci Xi or SP) or laparoscopic | Laparoscopic or open + bowel anastomosis |
| Dilation requirement | Lifelong, frequent | Lifelong, frequent (Shamamian 2025: primary peritoneal graft OR 3.20 for dilation difficulty) | Less aggressive (mucosa more compliant) |
| Vaginal-stenosis rate (De Rosa 2024 SR) | 5.70% | Similar to PIV; introital stenosis 4.7% | 0.20% — lowest |
| Rectoneovaginal fistula | 0.9–1.6% | Lower (no rectovaginal-space dissection during peritoneal harvest) | Anastomotic leak risk distinct from RVF |
| LUT function (Lee 2025) | n/a | No degradation at 12 mo (AUASI / UDI-6 stable or improved) | Limited prospective LUT data |
| Late revision rate | 37.1% at 15 yr (Opsomer Ghent) | Limited long-term data | Limited long-term data |
| Ideal candidate | Standard candidate with adequate donor tissue | Insufficient donor tissue; revision; depth augmentation | Revision after stenosis; maximal-lubrication priority |
Component-Procedure Decisions Within Vaginoplasty
Clitoroplasty
| Anatomy | Recommended Technique | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Uncircumcised, or > 2 cm inner preputial skin | Preputial-skin clitoroplasty with dorsal neurovascular pedicle glans-penis flap | Fascelli 2024 anatomy-guided framework[26]; preserves dorsal NVB; 86–87.8% report orgasm post-op |
| Circumcised or limited preputial skin | Urethral-flap clitoroplasty with dorsal NVB pedicle | Fascelli 2024; equivalent sensory outcomes when NVB preserved |
| Concern for neoclitoral viability | Dorsal NVB pedicle protection at every step; avoid two-stage approaches when feasible | Neoclitoral necrosis 4.8% in two-stage techniques (Fakin 2021) |
Long-term sensory data: Sigurjónsson 2017 — neoclitoral sensation is erogenous and durable; vibratory and light-touch sensation are preserved at long-term follow-up.[22]
Urethroplasty (Urethral Shortening + Repositioning)
The neomeatus is feminized in position and the urethra is shortened. Patient-reported urinary outcomes are markedly worse than surgeon-reported (Blasdel 2024 "blind spots" analysis):[16][23]
| Outcome | Surgeon-Reported | Patient-Reported |
|---|---|---|
| Meatal stenosis | 5–16.3% | Up to 40% |
| Misdirected urinary stream | 9.5–33% | 33–55% (AFFIRM: 68.9% report misdirected stream)[19] |
| Voiding dysfunction | 5.6–33% | 47–66% |
| Urinary incontinence | 4–19.3% | 23–33% |
Urethroplasty technique should preserve a downward-directed stream, with adequate urethral shortening to avoid post-void dribbling and a feminized meatal position. Patients should be counseled explicitly that the AFFIRM-reported 68.9% misdirected-stream rate substantially exceeds historical surgeon-reported rates.[16][19]
Labiaplasty
Labia majora are constructed from scrotal skin (or labia minora from preputial / urethral tissue) as the final step of vulvar reconstruction. Performed concurrently with vaginoplasty / vulvoplasty rather than staged.[12][24]
Preoperative Preparation
| Intervention | Detail |
|---|---|
| Scrotal / perineal electrolysis or laser hair removal | Essential before PIV — begin 6–12 months before surgery to prevent intravaginal hair growth |
| Smoking cessation | Modifiable risk factor for wound-healing complications; document ≥ 4–6 weeks abstinence |
| BMI optimization | BMI was not independently associated with complications in Gaither 2018 n = 330[28]; weight optimization remains a general perioperative goal |
| Pelvic-floor physical therapy | Preoperative PFPT significantly reduces postoperative pelvic-floor dysfunction (Motiwala 2026 narrative review)[27] |
| Dilation counseling | Patients must understand the lifelong commitment — early postoperative dilation averages 6.6 days/week, 2.4×/day, ~38 min/session (Gomez 2026 longitudinal PRO) |
| Estradiol management | WPATH SOC v8 favors estrogen continuation in most patients; selective hold based on VTE risk |
Postoperative Dilation Protocol
Dilation is the single most important patient-driven factor in maintaining neovaginal patency.[25][15]
- Early postoperative regimen: ~6.6 days/week, 2.4×/day, ~38 min/session (Gomez 2026 longitudinal PRO; n = large prospective cohort).
- Universal early difficulty: 100% of patients reported at least one dilation challenge (tightness 71%, bleeding 71%, pain 65%); prevalence declined significantly after 6 months.
- Predictors of dilation difficulty (Shamamian 2025): unemployment OR 2.74; HIV OR 2.59; psychiatric comorbidity besides gender dysphoria OR 1.61; primary peritoneal graft OR 3.20 (p = 0.019).
- Permanent vaginal stenosis is the consequence of inadequate dilation; structured PFPT referral is appropriate for patients with persistent pain or difficulty.
Long-Term Urologic Surveillance
| Concern | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Voiding dysfunction (common, underrecognized) | AFFIRM-domain follow-up — misdirected stream 68.9%, nocturia 51.3%, urinary frequency 29.7%; trigger urology referral when symptomatic[19] |
| Prostate screening | Prostate is left in situ during vaginoplasty and sits anterior to the neovagina. Digital examination should be performed vaginally, not rectally. Standard age- and risk-based screening guidelines apply[3] |
| Vaginal hygiene | Skin-lined neovagina does not self-lubricate; douching with soapy water or dilute vinegar/betadine is adequate; empiric vaginal metronidazole for persistent odor[3] |
| STI screening | Standard guidelines apply; counseling adapted to neovaginal tissue type and sexual practices |
| Periodic exam | Annual or biennial pelvic examination to monitor for stenosis, granulation tissue, intravaginal hair regrowth, and prolapse |
| Urethral red flags | Urinary retention, postvoid dribbling, recurrent UTI, or persistent vaginal cavity warrants urgent urology referral; complications can present months to years after the index operation |
Treatment Database
| Procedure | Domain | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Bilateral Simple Orchiectomy | Gonadectomy | Scrotal midline-raphe approach (gender-affirming); inguinal reserved for oncologic indications. **Scrotal skin must be preserved if future vaginoplasty is planned** — prior orchiectomy 3× odds of needing extragenital graft at PIV (Sineath 2022). Saltman 2023 NSQIP: complication 3.7% (no different from cisgender nononcologic, p=0.6). Outpatient; SCAB-only feasible (Issa 2004: 77% painless). Eliminates endogenous testosterone, allows antiandrogen withdrawal. |
| Vulvoplasty — Zero-Depth / Shallow-Depth | Vulvoplasty | External feminine appearance without canal creation; shallow-depth variants (Stelmar 2023 / van der Sluis 2020 / Aaen). 32% chose shallow over full-depth (Stelmar). Outcomes: 93% satisfaction; 86% would do it again; 27% reoperation, 82% of which is for urinary spraying. Indications: no penetrative-sex desire (59%), aversion to lifelong dilation, prior pelvic radiation, lower-risk preference. |
| Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty (PIV) — Single-Stage | Vaginoplasty | **Gold standard** for default candidates. Eight-step Ghent technique. Scrotal skin graft for depth augmentation needed in 85.7% (Opsomer 2021 n=384, 15-yr). Outcomes: 97.2% penetrative-intercourse capable; 83.4% orgasm; 37.1% late revision; 1.6% rectal perforation. **Single-stage preferred** (Fakin 2021): wound dehiscence 4.8% vs 33.9%, reoperation 6.4% vs 56.5%, stable depth at 3.5 yr vs >30% loss in two-stage. |
| Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty (PIV) — Two-Stage (historical / select) | Vaginoplasty | Historical alternative. Fakin 2021 3.5-yr comparison: significantly more complications and >30% depth loss vs single-stage. Selected use only — most centers now perform single-stage. |
| Robotic / Laparoscopic Peritoneal Pull-Through Vaginoplasty | Vaginoplasty | Castanon 2022 n=52 (laparoscopy-assisted): depth 14.7±0.5 cm, width 3.4±0.4 cm, ~96% satisfaction, complications 13.5% all conservatively managed. Self-lubricating peritoneal lining. Lee 2025 *Neurourol Urodyn*: no LUT-function degradation at 12 mo. **Caveat:** Shamamian 2025 — primary peritoneal graft OR 3.20 for dilation difficulty (p=0.019). |
| Robotic Davydov Peritoneal-Flap Augmentation of PIV | Vaginoplasty | Jacoby 2019 *J Urol*: Davydov peritoneal flap pulled through to join with inverted penile skin — adds **+5 cm canal depth** vs PIV alone. Indicated when penile/scrotal donor tissue is borderline. |
| Sigmoid (Intestinal) Vaginoplasty | Vaginoplasty | 15–20 cm sigmoid bowel segment. **Vaginal-stenosis rate 0.20%** vs 5.70% for PIV (De Rosa 2024 SR) — lowest of the three techniques. Self-lubricating mucinous epithelium. Best for **failed primary vaginoplasty** or maximal-lubrication priority. Disadvantages: laparotomy/laparoscopy + bowel anastomosis; diversion-colitis-like inflammation; mucus burden; rare neoplasia signal. |
| Ileal Vaginoplasty (less common) | Vaginoplasty | Alternative bowel segment when sigmoid is contraindicated (e.g., diverticular disease, prior surgery). Less mucus production than sigmoid; smaller lumen. Used selectively in revision settings. |
| Clitoroplasty — Preputial-Skin Flap (dorsal NVB pedicle) | Component Procedures | Fascelli 2024 anatomy-guided framework. Preferred when uncircumcised or >2 cm inner preputial skin. Dorsal neurovascular pedicle on glans-penis flap. Sensory outcomes: 86–87.8% report orgasm post-op (Sigurjónsson 2017 long-term sensitivity). |
| Clitoroplasty — Urethral-Flap Variant | Component Procedures | Fascelli 2024: anatomy-guided alternative when limited preputial skin (circumcised or insufficient inner-prepuce). Same dorsal-NVB-pedicle principle; equivalent sensory outcomes when NVB is preserved. Neoclitoral necrosis 4.8% in two-stage techniques (Fakin 2021). |
| Urethroplasty — Urethral Shortening + Feminizing Repositioning | Component Procedures | Repositions meatus inferiorly with downward-directed stream goal. **Patient-vs-surgeon-reported gap (Blasdel 2024 "blind spots"):** misdirected stream surgeon 9.5–33% vs patient 33–55% (AFFIRM 68.9%); voiding dysfunction 5.6–33% vs 47–66%; meatal stenosis 5–16.3% vs up to 40%. Counsel patients on the magnitude of the patient-reporting gap. |
| Labiaplasty | Component Procedures | Final step of vulvar reconstruction. Labia majora from scrotal skin; labia minora from preputial / urethral tissue. Performed concurrently with vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty rather than staged. |
| Neovaginal Stenosis Management — Stepwise | Revision / Salvage | Tier 1: structured dilation regimen + PFPT. Tier 2: in-office or operative release. Tier 3: peritoneal augmentation or sigmoid revision. De Rosa 2024 SR: PIV stenosis 5.70% vs sigmoid 0.20%; introital stenosis ~3–5% across techniques. |
| Vaginoplasty Revision — Robotic Peritoneal-Flap Augmentation | Revision / Salvage | For stenosis or insufficient depth after primary PIV. Avoids reliance on already-used penile/scrotal donor tissue. Keller 2024 algorithmic framework. |
| Sigmoid Revision Vaginoplasty | Revision / Salvage | When peritoneal-flap revision is unavailable or maximal lubrication is required. Adds bowel-anastomosis morbidity but provides the lowest stenosis-recurrence rate. |
| Rectoneovaginal Fistula Repair | Revision / Salvage | Diversion + tissue interposition (gracilis or Martius). Direct primary repair is high-failure. Pastier 2024 RVF data: Martius vs gracilis 69% vs 69% at long-term follow-up. |
| Meatal-Stenosis Revision | Revision / Salvage | Common urethroplasty complication (5–16.3% surgeon-reported, up to 40% patient-reported). Management: meatotomy ± local flap; refractory cases may require formal urethroplasty. |
| Granulation-Tissue Debridement | Revision / Salvage | 26% incidence after PIV (Massie 2018 PRS). In-office silver-nitrate cautery or operative debridement; commonly self-limited with adequate dilation. |
See Also
- GAS Overview (Special Populations)
- Feminizing Procedures (Special Populations)
- Revision & Salvage GAS
- Pharmacology — Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy
- Foundations — Peritoneal Flap
References
1. Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, et al. Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 (WPATH SOC v8). Int J Transgend Health. 2022;23(Suppl 1):S1–S259. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Health care for transgender and gender diverse individuals. Committee Opinion No. 823. 2021. (Cronin B, Stockdale CK, eds.)
3. Jackson Q, Yedlinsky NT, Gray M. Lifelong care of patients after gender-affirming surgery. Am Fam Physician. 2024;109(6):560–565.
4. 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
5. Ratanalert W, et al. Robotic full-length peritoneal-pull-through vaginoplasty: prospective single-center series. J Sex Med. 2025.
6. 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
7. van der Sluis WB, Schäfer T, Nijhuis THJ, Bouman MB. Genital gender-affirming surgery for transgender women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;86:102297. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2022.102297
8. Hehemann MC, Walsh TJ. Orchiectomy as bridge or alternative to vaginoplasty. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46(4):505–510. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2019.07.005
9. Stelmar J, Smith SM, Lee G, Zaliznyak M, Garcia MM. Shallow-depth vaginoplasty: preoperative goals, postoperative satisfaction, and why shallow-depth vaginoplasty should be offered as a standard feminizing genital gender-affirming surgery option. J Sex Med. 2023;20(11):1333–1343. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad111
10. 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
11. Opsomer D, Vyncke T, Mertens D, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the Ghent technique of penile inversion vaginoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;148(3):416e–424e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008300
12. Massie JP, Morrison SD, Van Maasdam J, Satterwhite T. Predictors of patient satisfaction and postoperative complications in penile inversion vaginoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(6):911e–921e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004427
13. Fakin RM, Giovanoli P. A single-center study comparison of two different male-to-female penile-skin inversion vaginoplasty techniques and their 3.5-year outcomes. J Sex Med. 2021;18(2):391–399. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.09.014
14. 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
15. Lee J, Oh C, Brucker B, Bluebond-Langner R, Zhao LC. Impact of gender-affirming vaginoplasty on lower urinary tract function: a single-center prospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2025;44(2):311–318. doi:10.1002/nau.25649
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. Shamamian PE, Chen D, Wang A, et al. Predictors of dilation difficulty in gender-affirming vaginoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;101:178–186. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.11.042
18. De Rosa P, Kent M, Regan M, Purohit RS. Vaginal stenosis after gender-affirming vaginoplasty: a systematic review. Urology. 2024;186:69–74. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2024.02.005
19. Huber S, Ferrando C, Safer JD, et al. Development and validation of urological and appearance domains of the post-affirming-surgery form and function individual reporting measure (AFFIRM) for transwomen following genital surgery. J Urol. 2021;206(6):1445–1453. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002141
20. Saltman AJ, Dorante MI, Jonczyk MM, et al. Outcomes of orchiectomy for gender-affirming surgery: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study. Urology. 2023;180:98–104. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.07.003
21. van der Sluis WB, Steensma TD, Timmermans FW, et al. Gender-confirming vulvoplasty in transgender women in the Netherlands: incidence, motivation analysis, and surgical outcomes. J Sex Med. 2020;17(8):1566–1573. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.04.007
22. Sigurjónsson H, Möllermark C, Rinder J, Farnebo F, Lundgren TK. Long-term sensitivity and patient-reported functionality of the neoclitoris after gender reassignment surgery. J Sex Med. 2017;14(2):269–273. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.12.003
23. Nassiri N, Maas M, Basin M, Cacciamani GE, Doumanian LR. Urethral complications after gender-reassignment surgery: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res. 2020;33(8):793–800. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0304-y
24. Sabbagh P, Richard C, Bourillon A, et al. Penile inversion vulvo-vaginoplasty with scrotal graft for trans women: surgical technique and results of initial experience. J Sex Med. 2025;22(1):156–164. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae135
25. Gomez DA, Ley M, Hu AC, et al. Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes of vaginal dilation after penile inversion vaginoplasty. J Sex Med. 2026;23(4):qdag068. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdag068
26. Fascelli M, Peters BR, Dy GW, Dugi DD. Gender-affirming clitoroplasty and construction of the clitoro-urethral complex: an anatomy-guided selection of two techniques. Urology. 2024;183:e320–e322. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.10.009
27. Motiwala ZY, Misra S, Desai A, et al. Postoperative urogynecologic complications after gender-affirming surgery: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2026;37(4):805–822. doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06405-6
28. Gaither TW, Awad MA, Osterberg EC, et al. Postoperative complications following primary penile inversion vaginoplasty among 330 male-to-female transgender patients. J Urol. 2018;199(3):760–765. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.013