Laparoscopy Assisted Peritoneal Pull-Through Vaginoplasty in Transgender Women

Abstract

Background: Penile inversion vaginoplasty still remains the gold standard in genital gender affirming surgeries in transwomen. However, insufficiency of the penile skin due to either radical circumcision or puberty blockers presents great challenge in vaginal reconstruction. Peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty is well known technique for the treatment of vaginal absence in cis-woman due to vaginal agenesis or trauma.

Objective: We describe our laparoscopy assisted technique of using peritoneal flaps for neovaginal construction in male to female gender affirming surgery METHODS: In period from March 2016 to June 2021, 52 transwomen, aged from 19 to 52 years (mean 27) underwent laparoscopy assisted peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty. Indications were genital skin insufficiency (radical circumcision in 16, scrotal skin insufficiency in 3 and lichen sclerosis in 3 cases) and prepubertal blockers in 22 and 17 cases, respectively. In remaining 13 candidates, peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty was preferable method of choice. Two peritoneal flaps are harvested from posterior bladder wall and anterior rectosigmoid peritoneum, using laparoscopy approach. Vaginal channel is created by combined perineal and laparoscopy approaches. Good vascularized peritoneal flaps are maximally mobilized and pulled-through to be joined with inverted penile skin. Peritoneal flaps are joined laterally to create neovagina. Gender affirming surgery is completed with reconstruction of external female genitalia, clitoris, labia minora and majora, and urethra. Vaginal packing is placed for 7 days postoperatively and followed by proper vaginal dilation for the first 12 months postoperatively.

Results: Follow-up ranged from 6 to 69 months (mean 29 months). Complications occurred in 7 cases: 3 had prolonged hematoma of the labia majora, one had neovaginal introitus dehiscence and one had superficial necrosis of the left labia majora. None of the complications required additional surgeries. The depth of the neovagina at the control check-up in 6 months after surgery was 14.7 ± 0.5 cm, while width was about 3.4 ± 0.4 cm. Majority of patients (≈96%) were satisfied with the new genitalia, sensitivity, lubrication and possibility of engaging in sexual intercourse according to self-reports. One patient required reduction of the size of her clitoris because of hypersensitivity and the other one requested laser treatment of the incisional scars.

Conclusion: Although known for quite a long time in vaginal reconstruction for cis-women with vaginal agenesis and different forms of vaginal absence, peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty offers promising outcomes in transgender women, as an option that will give self-lubricating neovagina, with insignificant scarring and complications and high degree of patient's satisfaction.