Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Peritoneal Flap vs. Perineal Penile Inversion Techniques for Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty

  • Female Urology (L Cox, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To discuss perineal and robotic approaches to gender-affirming vaginoplasty.

Recent Findings

The Davydov peritoneal vaginoplasty has its origins in neovaginal reconstruction for vaginal agenesis. It has been adapted as a robotic-assisted laparoscopic procedure and provides an alternative to perineal canal dissection in gender-affirming vaginoplasty. Both techniques represent variations of penile inversion vaginoplasty with successful outcomes and overall low rates of major complications reported in the literature. However, there are differing advantages and considerations to each approach.

Summary

A perineal approach has been the gold standard to gender-affirming vaginoplasty for many decades. Robotic peritoneal gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) is an emerging alternative, with potential advantages including less reliance on extragenital skin grafts in individuals with minimal genital tissue, especially among patients presenting with pubertal suppression, and safer dissection in revision vaginoplasty for stenosis of the proximal neovaginal canal. Additional risks of RPGAV include those associated with robotic abdominal surgeries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Flores AR, Herman JL, Gates GJ, Brown TNT. How many adults identify as transgender in the United States? Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute. 2016.

  2. James SE, Herman JL, Rankin S, Keisling M, Mottet L, Anafi M. The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2016.

  3. Jacoby A, Maliha S, Granieri MA, Dy G, Bluebond-Langner R, Zhao LC. Robotic Davydov peritoneal flap vaginoplasty for augmentation of vaginal depth in feminizing vaginoplasty. J Urol. 2019.

  4. Fedele L, Frontino G, Restelli E, Ciappina N, Motta F, Bianchi S. Creation of a neovagina by Davydov’s laparoscopic modified technique in patients with Rokitansky syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(1):33.e1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Horbach SE, Bouman MB, Smit JM, Ozer M, Buncamper ME, Mullender MG. Outcome of vaginoplasty in male-to-female transgenders: a systematic review of surgical techniques. J Sex Med. 2015;12(6):1499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buncamper ME, van der Sluis WB, de Vries M, Witte BI, Bouman MB, Mullender MG. Penile inversion vaginoplasty with or without additional full-thickness skin graft: to graft or not to graft? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(3):649e-656e.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. • Shoureshi P, Dy GW, Dugi D, 3rd. Neovaginal canal dissection in gender-affirming vaginoplasty. J Urol. 2021;205(4):1110–8. An in-depth review of the anatomy of the neovaginal canal. Important for all surgeons performing vaginoplasty, regardless of technique.

  8. Shoureshi P, Dugi D 3rd. Penile inversion vaginoplasty technique. Urol Clinics N Am. 2019;46(4):511–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buncamper ME, van der Sluis WB, van der Pas RS, Ozer M, Smit JM, Witte BI, et al. Surgical outcome after penile inversion vaginoplasty: a retrospective study of 475 transgender women. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(5):999–1007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gaither TW, Awad MA, Osterberg EC, Murphy GP, Romero A, Bowers ML, et al. Postoperative complications following primary penile inversion vaginoplasty among 330 male to female transgender patients. J Urol. 2017.

  11. •• 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 May;79(5):676-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.06.040. Epub 2020 Jul 2. PMID: 32624272.Initial description of the single port robotic system and its benefits and considerations compared to multi-port systems.

  12. Zhao XW, Ma JY, Wang YX, Zhang H, Zhang J, Kang S. Laparoscopic vaginoplasty using a single peritoneal flap: 10 years of experience in the creation of a neovagina in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(1):241–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alborzi S, Momtahan M, Parsanezhad ME, Yazdani M. Successful treatment of cervical aplasia using a peritoneal graft. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2005;88(3):299–302.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. •• Willemsen WN, Kluivers KB. Long-term results of vaginal construction with the use of Frank dilation and a peritoneal graft (Davydov procedure) in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster syndrome. Fertility and sterility. 2015;103(1):220–7.e1. This paper reviews the origins of the Davydov procedure in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster syndrome, prior to its adaptation for transgender patients.

  15. Acar O, Sofer L, Dobbs RW, Greenwald DT, Halgrimson WR, Crivellaro S, et al. Single port and multi-port approaches for robotic vaginoplasty with the Davydov technique. Urology. 2020.

  16. • Dy GW, Blasdel G, Shakir NA, Bluebond-Langner R, Zhao LC. Robotic peritoneal flap revision of gender affirming vaginoplasty: a novel technique for treating neovaginal stenosis. Urology. 2021. Description of robotic peritoneal flap technique for revision vaginoplasty.

  17. Bouman MB, van der Sluis WB, Buncamper ME, Ozer M, Mullender MG, Meijerink WJ. Primary total laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty in transgender women with penoscrotal hypoplasia: a prospective cohort study of surgical outcomes and follow-up of 42 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(4):614e-e623.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. E. Coleman, W. Bockting, M. Botzer, P. Cohen-Kettenis, G. DeCuypere, J. Feldman, L. Fraser, J. Green, G. Knudson, W. J. Meyer, S. Monstrey, R. K. Adler, G. R. Brown, A. H. Devor, R. Ehrbar, R. Ettner, E. Eyler, R. Garofalo, D. H. Karasic, A. I. Lev, G. Mayer, H. Meyer-Bahlburg, B. P. Hall, F. Pfaefflin, K. Rachlin, B. Robinson, L. S. Schechter, V. Tangpricha, M. van Trotsenburg, A. Vitale, S. Winter, S. Whittle, K. R. Wylie K. Zucker. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, Version 7. International Journal of Transgenderism. 2012:13;4, 165–232, https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2011.700873

  19. Boskey ER, Taghinia AH, Ganor O. Association of surgical risk with exogenous hormone use in transgender patients: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(2):159–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kozato A, Fox GWC, Yong PC, Shin SJ, Avanessian BK, Ting J, et al. No venous thromboembolism increase among transgender female patients remaining on estrogen for gender-affirming surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106(4):e1586–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nolan IT, Haley C, Morrison SD, Pannucci CJ, Satterwhite T. Estrogen continuation and venous thromboembolism in penile inversion vaginoplasty. J Sex Med. 2021;18(1):193–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gotto GT, Yunis LH, Vora K, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Rabbani F. Impact of prior prostate radiation on complications after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2010;184(1):136–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jiang DD, Gallagher S, Burchill L, Berli J, Dugi D 3rd. Implementation of a pelvic floor physical therapy program for transgender women undergoing gender-affirming vaginoplasty. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(5):1003–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Grieco DL, Anzellotti GM, Russo A, Bongiovanni F, Costantini B, D’Indinosante M, et al. Airway closure during surgical pneumoperitoneum in obese patients. Anesthesiology. 2019;131(1):58–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rouby JJ, Monsel A, Lucidarme O, Constantin JM. Trendelenburg position and morbid obesity: a respiratory challenge for the anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology. 2019;131(1):10–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dy GW, Kaoutzanis C, Zhao L, Bluebond-Langner R. Technical Refinements of Vulvar Reconstruction in Gender-Affirming Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 May;145(5):984e-987e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006796. PMID: 32332553.

  27. Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Wiswell TE. Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have? Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(5):677–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee JM, Huang C-Y, Wu K-Y, Yen C-F, Chern B, Lee C-L. Novel technique of neovagina creation with uterine serosa in the treatment of vaginal agenesis associated with mullerian agenesis. Gynecol Minimally Invasive Ther. 2014;3(2):50–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Slater MW, Vinaja X, Aly I, Loukas M, Terrell M, Schober J. Neovaginal construction with pelvic peritoneum: reviewing an old approach for a new application. Clin Anatomy (New York, NY). 2018;31(2):175–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Marques Hde S, dos Santos FL, Lopes-Costa PV, dos Santos AR, da Silva BB. Creation of a neovagina in patients with Rokitansky syndrome using peritoneum from the pouch of Douglas: an analysis of 48 cases. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):827–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Herman CJ, Willemsen WN, Mastboom JL, Vooijs GP. Artificial vaginas: possible sources of epithelialization. Hum Pathol. 1982;13(12):1100–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wedler V, Meuli-Simmen C, Guggenheim M, Schneller-Gustafsson M, Kunzi W. Laparoscopic technique for secondary vaginoplasty in male to female transsexuals using a modified vascularized pedicled sigmoid. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;57(4):181–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Transgender Health Program, Oregon Health & Science University, 3303 SW Bond Ave., Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Blair R. Peters, Leigh H. Martin, Christi Butler, Daniel Dugi & Geolani W. Dy

Authors
  1. Blair R. Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leigh H. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christi Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Dugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Geolani W. Dy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geolani W. Dy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Female Urology

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, B.R., Martin, L.H., Butler, C. et al. Robotic Peritoneal Flap vs. Perineal Penile Inversion Techniques for Gender-Affirming Vaginoplasty. Curr Urol Rep 23, 211–218 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01106-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01106-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation