Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Intense Pulsed Light Treatments including Upper Lid or Lateral Canthus in Patients of Meibomian Gland Dysfunction
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Retinal Ganglion Cell Layer after Uncomplicated Cataract Surgery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Body Contouring as Gender-Affirming Surgery in Transgender Patients: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm13123580
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Gender-Affirming Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

by
Viraj Shah
1,
Bashar Hassan
2,3,
Rena Hassan
4,
Malory Alexis
5,
Myan Bhoopalam
2,
Lorreen Agandi
6 and
Fan Liang
2,3,*
1
Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW10 9NH, UK
2
Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
3
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
4
Faculty of Medicine, Saint Georges University of Beirut, Beirut 2807, Lebanon
5
Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, FL 32301, USA
6
Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York, NY 10027, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(12), 3580; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13123580
Submission received: 29 April 2024 / Revised: 14 June 2024 / Accepted: 15 June 2024 / Published: 19 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art in Plastic Surgery)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: Fewer than one-fifth of all studies on gender-affirming care originate from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is the first systematic review to examine surgical demographics and outcomes following gender-affirming surgery (GAS) in LMICs. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, five databases were systematically searched for original studies and case series on GAS within LMIC settings. Excluded reports included animal studies, non-English language studies, secondary studies including reviews, individual case reports and conference abstracts. Results: This review includes 34 studies involving n = 5064 TGNB individuals. Most studies (22, 64.7%) were from upper-middle-income countries, followed by lower-middle-income countries (12, 35.3%). A total of 31 studies (91.2%) reported on post-operative outcomes. Of n = 5013 patients who underwent GAS, 71.5% (n = 3584) underwent masculinizing and 29.5% (n = 1480) underwent feminizing procedures. The predominant procedures were metoidioplasty (n = 2270/3584, 63.3%) and vaginoplasty (n = 1103/1480, 74.5%). Mean follow-up was 47.7 months. In patients who underwent metoidioplasty, 6.8% (n = 155) of patients experienced a complication and 6.3% (n = 144) underwent revision surgery. In patients who underwent vaginoplasty, 11.5% (n = 127) of patients experienced a complication and 8.5% (n = 94) underwent revision surgery. Of the studies (25/34, 73.5%) that reported on quality of life and post-operative satisfaction, the majority showed marked improvements in psychosocial and functional outcomes. Notably, no post-surgical regret was reported among the surveyed patients. Conclusions: Existing literature on GAS in LMICs remains scarce and is concentrated in select institutions that drive specific procedures. Our review highlights the low reported volumes of GAS, variability in surgical outcomes and quality of life.

1. Introduction

Gender-affirming surgery (GAS), which allows the alignment of gender identity with physical appearance [1], is recognized as a therapeutic intervention and a medical necessity for many transgender and non-binary (TGNB) individuals with gender dysphoria [2,3,4,5,6]. Over the past decade, the incidence of individuals receiving GAS in high-income countries (HICs) has increased, likely due to expansion in private and government insurance, changes in societal attitudes, and legislative advancements [7]. However, data and trends are harder to ascertain in non-HIC countries, where the true prevalence of TGNB identities is frequently underreported due to stigma, and where published literature is less prolific [7,8]. In a sco** review of peer-reviewed quantitative articles discussing TGNB health from 2008 to 2014, under one-fifth (22/116) were from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and only nine studies addressed gender-affirming surgical care [8].
While there are more than 300 million surgical procedures performed around the world annually, an estimated 5 billion people are unable to access safe surgical treatment. Up to 94% of those with limited access live in LMICs [9]. The International Surgical Outcomes Study evaluated incidence and risk factors for complications and death after inpatient elective surgery at 474 hospitals in 27 countries of varied economic status [10]. Data demonstrated that barriers to providing safe surgical treatment in LMICs included low hospital procedural volumes, few hospital beds, and a scarce number of operating theatres, all compounded by the geographical remoteness of many surgical hospitals and an absence of adequately trained staff [10]. In addition, LMICs have fewer reliable systems to monitor the volume of activity and surgical outcomes. For GAS in particular, impediments to care are compounded by the dearth of adequately trained surgeons, cultural misperceptions, stigma, the need for ongoing post-operative care, and high levels of surgical complexity, particularly with relation to genital surgery [11].
Understanding of the safety, outcomes, and effectiveness of GAS in LMICs is limited, highlighting the need for robust auditing and public reporting of surgical outcomes following GAS in these countries. This review seeks to provide a comprehensive and general overview of current volumes, surgery distribution, and post-operative outcomes of GAS in LMICs. We also aim to identify the challenges to performing GAS in LMICs and suggest future recommendations to improve care in these countries.

2. Methods

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [12] and Cochrane [13] guidelines to analyze pre-operative demographics and outcomes for GAS in TGNB individuals in LMICs. The search was conducted using EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, as outlined in Supplementary Material Document S1. We aimed to identify all original articles and case series from inception to December 2023 involving GAS in LMICs. In addition to articles obtained through the database search, some articles were identified by examining the reference lists of those found in the initial search. The only limitations applied to the search were the timeframe and English language.
In our review, countries were classified as LMICs according to the World Bank’s 2023–2024 gross national income (GNI) classifications [14]. The World Bank’s annual classification stratifies countries by GNI per capita, defining low-income countries as those with a per-capita GNI of less than USD 1135, lower-middle-income countries as those with a per-capita GNI between USD 1136 and USD 4465, and upper-middle-income countries as those with a per-capita GNI between USD 4466 and USD 13,845. Therefore, an LMIC is defined as any country meeting these classifications. Supplementary Material Document S2 provides a full list of LMICs that met these criteria and were included in our review.

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All original articles that reported on GAS outcomes within LMICs were considered for review. Inclusion criteria encompassed any original studies or case series (where n > 5) that reported on the performance of GAS in patient populations, with either pre-operative demographic data and/or post-operative outcomes. Exclusion criteria included studies meeting the following conditions: (1) data were inconsistent or of ambiguous quality, hindering data extraction; (2) studies were non-clinical or conducted using animal models; (3) studies lacked explicit reference to GAS; (4) procedures occurred in HICs; (5) studies were editorials, reviews, individual case reports with single patients, preclinical investigations, or meeting abstracts; and (6) duplicate articles. Following the initial review of titles and abstracts, two independent reviewers (RH and LA) conducted a secondary assessment to determine the inclusion and exclusion of articles. A third independent reviewer (MA) resolved any disagreements between the original reviewers. Eligible studies were then retrieved for full-text assessment.

2.2. Data Extraction

The following data were extracted: first author, study design, study country, country’s income classification, primary outcome, number of patients, and patient demographics (if applicable), including gender identity, history of smoking, hormone therapy, and mental health therapy. We also captured duration of follow-up, type of procedure received, post-operative outcomes (e.g., complications, success and revision rates, and post-operative satisfaction and/or quality of life when reported). One author performed data extraction (VS) and a third independent reviewer (BH) assessed both full-texts and the data extraction sheet for discrepancies and resolved any disagreements. The studies included in this review are markedly heterogeneous; as a result, quality assessment using formalized scoring tools (e.g., Cochrane’s Risk of Bias Assessment) was not performed [15].

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Assessment

The literature search identified 768 articles, following the removal of duplicates from an original 2474 articles. Following abstract screening, 98 articles underwent full-text review and assessment in accordance with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Following final review, a total of 34 studies [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49], encompassing n = 5064 patients, were included in the final analysis. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram.
Table 1 provides a concise summary of the included studies, detailing their country of origin, study design, complications, domains assessed for post-operative satisfaction, and follow-up duration.

3.2. Temporal Trends and Geographic Disparities in Gender-Affirming Surgery Literature

A total of 23 (67.6%) studies were published during the 5 years preceding this review’s search end-date, while 14 (41.1%) were published during the 2 years prior to this review. Only 2 (5.9%) studies were published before 2010. This reflects a positive temporal trend, with a recent rapid increase in the GAS literature from LMICs.
A total of 12 studies (35.3%) [17,18,19,21,29,31,32,33,34,35,39,46] were from lower-middle-income countries and 22 studies (64.7%) [16,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,30,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,47,48,49] were from upper-middle-income countries. No studies originated from low-income countries. Figure 2 displays a global map illustrating the LMICs included in this review, along with the corresponding number of publications from each country. Five studies involving n = 201 patients originated from Turkey, where GAS is not legalized, and an explicit court order must be sought for provision of services [16,20,41,42,49].

3.3. Patient Characteristics and Surgical Outcomes

The mean patient age was 30 years (absolute range: 24.4–41.0). A total of 16 (47.1%) studies included patients’ medical histories [16,17,20,21,22,23,29,31,38,39,40,41,44,46,47,49] and 31 (91.2%) reported on post-operative outcomes [16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. The mean post-operative follow-up was 48 months (absolute range: 6–94 months). Of n = 5064 TGNB patients reported across the review as surgical candidates, n = 5013 (99%) were confirmed as successfully completing GAS. Of these, 71.5% (n = 3584) underwent masculinizing and 29.5% (n = 1480) underwent feminizing procedures.

3.3.1. Masculinizing GAS

A total of n = 18 studies [17,18,21,24,25,26,30,34,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,47,48,49] included patients who underwent masculinizing GAS (n = 3584/5013, 71.5%). The predominant masculinizing GAS observed was metoidioplasty, accounting for 63.3% (n = 2270/3584) of cases.
It is noteworthy, however, that these volumes are driven by data from two specific institutions in Serbia, which performed a total of 1751 metoidioplasties, accounting for nearly half (48.9%) of all masculinizing GAS [24,37,38,48,50]. Serbia reported the highest incidence of masculinizing GAS (n = 3126/3584, 87.2%) overall. Gender-affirming hysterectomy was the second most prevalent masculinizing GAS (n = 1214/3584, 33.9%), followed by phalloplasty (n = 813/3584, 22.7%). Hysterectomy volumes were largely driven by Serbia, with one of the same high-volume Serbian institutions performing metoidioplasty (n = 593/1214, 48.8%), as well as India (n = 558/1214, 46%). Phalloplasty volumes were predominantly reported by India (n = 552/813, 67.9%), where 82.5% (n = 671/813) of cases utilized free radial artery forearm flap and the remainder employed the pedicled anterolateral thigh flap (n = 142/81, 17.5%). Table 2A shows the distribution of the different masculinizing GAS by country.
Table 2B reports the frequency of post-operative complications following masculinizing GAS procedures. Of 3584 patients who underwent masculinizing GAS, 11.6% (n = 416/3584) experienced at least one complication and 7.2% (n = 258/3584) required revision. The most common complications included perineal cysts (n = 79/2270, 3.5%) following metoidioplasty and urethral strictures following phalloplasty (n = 145/813, 17.8%).
Although chest masculinization surgery remains the most common masculinizing surgery in the United States, it was the fourth most commonly reported masculinizing GAS in LMICs comprising only 13.1% of patients (n = 471/3584).

3.3.2. Feminizing GAS

While 55.8% (n = 19/34) of studies [16,17,19,20,22,23,26,27,28,29,31,32,33,35,43,44,45,46] included patients who underwent feminizing GAS, the total number of TGNB individuals who underwent feminizing GAS (n = 1480/5064, 29.2%) was significantly lower than of those who underwent masculinizing GAS. The distribution of the feminizing GAS procedures and their respective incidences across LMICs are shown in Table 3A.
Vaginoplasty was the most common feminizing GAS, representing 74.5% (n = 1103/1480) of reported cases, and was predominantly performed in India (n = 685/1103, 62.1%), followed by Brazil (n = 249/1103, 22.6%). Among n = 1103 patients, approximately half (n = 580/1103, 52.6%) underwent a form of penile inversion vaginoplasty, using a classic or penile-perineoscrotal flap approach [19,22,27,35,46]. The remainder (n = 395/1103, 35.8%) largely underwent the modified rectosigmoid colon approach for vaginoplasty [20,33]. A total of 4.7% (n = 52/1103) of patients reported undergoing peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty [28], and 3.2% (n = 35/1103) reported secondary vaginoplasty using grafts derived from abdominal tissue [45]. One study comprising n = 41 patients did not disclose the approach utilized for vaginoplasty [43].
Facial feminizing surgery accounted for 16.5% (n = 244/1480) of feminizing GAS, with India reporting the highest volume (n = 227/244, 93%), followed by Iran (n = 10/244, 4.1%). Chondrolaryngoplasty comprised 4.4% (n = 65/1480) of cases and was predominantly conducted in India (n = 55/65, 84.6%) and Iran (n = 10, 15.4%).
Table 3B reports the frequency of post-operative complications following feminizing GAS procedures.
Of n = 1480 patients who underwent feminizing GAS, n = 185/1480 (12.5%) experienced at least one complication, and n = 97/1480 (6.6%) required revision surgery. In patients who underwent vaginoplasty (n = 1103), complications most commonly included the development of granulomatous tissue (n = 44/1103, 4%) and urethral strictures (n = 44/1103, 4%). The most common complication following facial feminizing surgery was wound dehiscence (n = 5/244, 2.1%). This was also the case for chondrolaryngoplasty (n = 4/65, 6.2%).

3.4. Patient Satisfaction and Quality of Life Outcomes

A total of 25/34 (73.5%) studies with n = 3243 patients reported on post-operative satisfaction and quality of life metrics [16,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,31,32,35,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,48,49]. This was markedly heterogenous, with different methodologies for assessing quality of life. While few studies formally utilized validated scoring systems, such as the WHO Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire, PHQ-9, and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale, the majority applied subjective patient perception questionnaires during follow-up. These aimed to determine whether patients perceived an improvement in their quality of life. Satisfaction was assessed heterogeneously across all studies. Patients were asked to self-assess their satisfaction using categorical scales ranging from ‘unsatisfactory’ to ‘very high satisfaction’ across various parameters, including aesthetic outcome, erogenous sensation, sexual function, vocal change, or an overall assessment relevant to the procedure.
While it is difficult to amalgamate outcomes across all studies reviewed, several significant findings emerged. The study by Castanon et al. [28] in Serbia highlighted high patient satisfaction following peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty, with 96% of patients expressing satisfaction with both appearance and sensitivity. Ozkan et al. [20] utilized a rectosigmoid colon-based approach for vaginal reconstruction, reporting favorable outcomes in both aesthetics and sexual functioning. Bordas et al. reported high satisfaction among 645 patients regarding post-operative aesthetics and erogenous sensation following metoidioplasty [24]. While only 17.6% (6/34) of studies with a total of n = 343 patients specifically evaluated post-operative quality of life, nearly all studies indicated statistically significant improvements across most domains and cohorts (Table 1). For example, in the study by Sir et al., 71 mastectomy patients used a validated TRANS-Q PROM. There was a significant improvement in satisfaction between pre-operative and post-operative assessments (p < 0.05) across cohorts for each specific mastectomy approach [42]. Likewise, the study conducted by Chaovanilikit et al. in Thailand, involving 37 vaginoplasty patients, revealed that surgery led to significant improvements in quality of life, depression, and self-esteem (p < 0.001) [43].
Despite overall promising outcomes, several limitations remain. In their series of 160 phalloplasty cases, Bencic et al. reported only a 14% satisfaction rate for tactile sensation in the neophallus [25]. Furthermore, across the 41 vaginoplasty cases included in the de Toni Abboud et al. study in Brazil [45], 22.9% of patients were dissatisfied with cosmesis and sexual function. They also reported concerns regarding satisfactory sexual intercourse and neovaginal length. Similarly, relatively high rates of sexual dissatisfaction were reported by 26.9% of patients post-vaginoplasty in the Monteiro Petry Jardim study, also conducted in Brazil [44]. Sexual function consistently emerged as the least satisfactory domain in 7 out of 8 studies where it was assessed [20,28,30,35,38,44,45,48]. The heterogeneity of reporting makes it difficult to assess other domains beyond sexual function [16,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,35,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,48,49].
Of 216 patients surveyed for post-surgical regret, none expressed regret [16,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,31,32,35,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,48,49]. Regret was subjectively assessed through patient follow-up questionnaires where applicable. Among studies that assessed quality of life, satisfaction, or post-operative regret, there was no standardized questionnaire used for assessing these outcomes.

4. Discussion

This systematic review, following PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, highlights geographic disparities in GAS literature, with 35.3% of the literature originating from lower-middle-income countries and no studies from low-income countries. Masculinizing GAS, primarily metoidioplasty, constituted 70.8% of cases, notably influenced by Serbian outcomes [24], while feminizing GAS, mainly vaginoplasty, accounted for 29.2% of surgeries. The rate of post-operative complications for most procedures was within reported ranges in the general literature. Patient satisfaction across both masculinizing and feminizing surgeries was high, although no validated or standardized questionnaires were used for assessment, and heterogeneity in outcomes was observed. The review provides a preliminary understanding of GAS outcomes in LMICs, emphasizing geographical variations, prevalent procedures, complications, and patient satisfaction outcomes.
Our findings highlight a global increase in GAS reporting. Notably, nearly half of the included studies were published in the two years preceding the review (n = 14 [41.1%]). This trend aligns with existing evidence pointing to the increasing prevalence of GAS on a global scale [51,52]. In contrast, reporting of genital surgery was more prevalent than chest surgery in both masculinizing and feminizing gender-affirming procedures. This differs from findings from the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample and the National Inpatient Sample in the United States, where breast and chest GASs were reported as the most common procedures, followed by genital reconstruction [53]. It is unclear if this inconsistency arises from bias in reporting or is an actual reflection of overall surgical volumes. The rise of medical tourism in countries such as Thailand [54] and Serbia [55] may lead to an increased volume of complex GAS being performed in certain LMICs. Specifically, in cases where GAS procedures are not covered by insurance, patients may opt to self-finance less complex procedures, such as breast augmentation or chest masculinization, in their home countries. However, they may choose to travel abroad, particularly for more affordable vaginoplasty, metoidioplasty, and phalloplasty procedures.
In our review, the reporting of post-operative complications was inconsistent, resulting in a wide range of outcomes. This inconsistency aligns with global data, which also faces challenges with inconsistent reporting of outcome parameters [56]. Vaginoplasty was the most common feminizing procedure in this review, and complications such as urethral strictures and granulomatous tissue development were low, occurring in less than 5% of cases, a notably lower incidence compared to reports from HICs, where vaginoplasty complications range from 20–30% [57,58]. We postulate that this discrepancy may stem from challenges to follow-up, insufficient patient monitoring due to poor access to healthcare services, lack of standardization in outcome measurements, and controversy in what constitutes a complication. Furthermore, this inconsistency may be driven by socioeconomic disparities within LMICs. Chaovanilikit suggests that TGNB patients who successfully access GAS in LMICs are wealthier and have better access to safe recovery environments [43], both of which are known to be positive predictors of GAS outcomes [51]. This contrasts with the GAS population in HICs, which can be comprised of a more socioeconomically diverse population. Lastly, as highlighted by Thammapiwan [27], studies from LMICs may exhibit more methodological flaws and smaller sample sizes compared to studies conducted in HICs. This discrepancy is often exacerbated by the availability of greater academic and research resources, as well as higher-volume surgical facilities in HICs [22].
Metoidioplasty, the most prevalent masculinizing GAS in this review, represented 63.3% of cases, primarily from the 813 patients included in the study by Bordas et al. in Serbia [24]. As the literature is heavily influenced by Serbian centers performing high volumes of metoidioplasty, it is hard to ascertain the true prevalence of masculinizing genital surgery. Nonetheless, many reconstructive centers in LMICs may lack the necessary infrastructure and expertise for microsurgically based phalloplasty. Hence, metoidioplasty may be considered a more feasible option in such settings. Lastly, it is not uncommon for patients to elect for single stage metoidioplasty as opposed to multistage phalloplasty, due to financial limitations, and concerns for high rates of complications associated with phalloplasty.
This review underscores the critical importance of employing a standardized questionnaire to assess satisfaction and quality of life among TGNB individuals undergoing GAS that can be universally applied in both HICs and LMICs. The goal is to establish a common metric that transcends geographical and cultural variations, ensuring that assessments of satisfaction and quality of life are applicable and comparable across diverse settings. By addressing this need for standardization, future research can contribute significantly to enhancing the consistency and reliability of data on the outcomes of GAS, ultimately advancing the understanding of the impact of these procedures on the well-being of individuals across different socioeconomic and cultural contexts.
The overall paucity of studies in this review again highlights the unfortunate reality that GAS remains a significant barrier for TGNB individuals in LMICs. In such settings, many patients seeking GAS opt for practices that may diverge from international or country-based standards of care due to stigma and legal constraints. Majumder et al. highlights that up to 13.6% of patients in Eastern India received GAS outside the standards of care [18,19] and a small minority received services by actual licensed medical practitioners. Similarly, Bautista et al. stress the lack of trained providers in Colombia, as well as the high proportion of patients who engage in medical transition without a prescription or medical supervision. They highlight that their findings are consistent with reports from Thailand, another upper-middle income country, where 88.6% of TGNB patients acknowledged self-administering hormones [26,27,43].
Several studies emphasized the persistent social challenges faced by TGNB individuals in LMICs. Aghabikloo et al. [17] commented on the unique interplay between society-level stigma and regulatory approval for GAS in Iran. They noted that the suicide rate among TGNB individuals in Iran exceeds that of the general population (20% vs. 0.006%). Additionally, GAS is only sanctioned following successful fulfilment of selection criteria, which include, among other factors, parental consent. Due to their marginalized status and resulting economic challenges within LMICs, TGNB individuals often face significant financial constraints. The substantial cost associated with GAS can therefore serve as a formidable barrier to surgical access for this population. A sco** review conducted in 2020 by Scheim et al. [8] highlighted peer and family rejection, along with financial obstacles, as regrettably common experiences for TGNB individuals in LMICs seeking GAS. This was supported by Barik et al., who emphasized the substantial financial exclusion experienced by the TGNB community in India [59]. In fact, India stands as the sole country in this review with any evidence of publicly-funded access to GAS [59]. Given the disadvantaged economic status of TGNB individuals in LMICs, the expenses associated with GAS may pose a particularly significant barrier for this population [60,61,62].
Our study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, only 47.1% [16,17,20,21,22,23,29,31] of studies reported on patient demographics and pre-operative characteristics. Second, overall complication rates (Table 2B and Table 3B) were computed by dividing the number of observed complications by the total number of patients in studies where the complication was assessed. However, because not all studies assess for or report these complications, the reported rates may significantly underestimate the true complication rates. This discrepancy is primarily attributed to the limitations inherent to the included studies and their methodologies. In addition, many of the studies originated from countries where TGNB individuals face persecution, and access to GAS, where available, is not formally documented. This may have contributed to publication bias. The focus on English language studies in the inclusion criteria might have inadvertently excluded relevant studies from LMICs where English is not the primary language. Our review included studies with varying sample sizes, with only five (14.7%) studies involving samples larger than 250 individuals [24,30,33,34,48], underscoring the need for larger international studies on GAS. Lastly, the studies had predominantly short follow-ups, with only two studies extending beyond 5 years, impeding the comprehensive assessment of long-term outcomes and potential complications. Despite these considerations, efforts were made to address these limitations within the bounds of the review process.

5. Conclusions

We observed increased reporting of GAS outcomes in LMICs in recent years, and several studies highlighted significant quality of life improvements following GAS. Despite these findings, LMICs face significant challenges due to limited infrastructure, restricted access to care, and enduring stigma impacting the journey of TGNB individuals. The limited and heterogeneous outcomes reported in the literature underscore the need for additional research, focusing on standardized metrics for capturing long-term follow-up, patient satisfaction, and quality of life outcomes. International collaboration is crucial, fostering shared responsibility to promote global surgical equity by supporting provider training and knowledge exchange between high-income and LMIC settings.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://mdpi.longhoe.net/article/10.3390/jcm13123580/s1, Document S1: Search Terms. Document S2: List of LMICs included in this review, as per the World Bank’s 2023 GNI per capita classifications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.S., B.H. and F.L.; Methodology, all authors; Formal Analysis, V.S. and B.H.; Investigation, all authors; Data Curation, all authors; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, all authors; Writing—Review & Editing, B.H. and F.L.; Supervision, B.H. and F.L.; Project Administration, F.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hadj-Moussa, M.; Ohl, D.A.; Kuzon, W.M. Evaluation and Treatment of Gender Dysphoria to Prepare for Gender Confirmation Surgery. Sex. Med. Rev. 2018, 6, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lee, H.; Park, J.; Choi, B.; Yi, H.; Kim, S.S. Experiences of and barriers to transition-related healthcare among Korean transgender adults: Focus on gender identity disorder diagnosis, hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery. Epidemiol. Health 2018, 40, e2018005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Almazan, A.N.; Keuroghlian, A.S. Association Between Gender-Affirming Surgeries and Mental Health Outcomes. JAMA Surg. 2021, 156, 611–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. El-Hadi, H.; Stone, J.; Temple-Oberle, C.; Harrop, A.R. Gender-affirming surgery for transgender individuals: Perceived satisfaction and barriers to care. Plastic. Surg. 2018, 26, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McNichols, C.H.L.; O’Brien-Coon, D.; Fischer, B. Patient-reported satisfaction and quality of life after trans male gender affirming surgery. Int. J. Transgend. Health 2020, 21, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schechter, L.S.; Cohen, M. Gender confirmation surgery: Moving forward. J. Craniofacial Surg. 2019, 30, 1364–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nolan, I.T.; Dy, G.W.; Levitt, N. Considerations in Gender-Affirming Surgery: Demographic Trends. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 46, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Scheim, A.; Kacholia, V.; Logie, C.; Chakrapani, V.; Ranade, K.; Gupta, S. Health of transgender men in low-income and middle-income countries: A sco** review. BMJ Glob. Health. 2020, 5, e003471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Biccard, B.M.; Madiba, T.E.; Kluyts, H.-L.; Munlemvo, D.M.; Madzimbamuto, F.D.; Basenero, A.; Youssouf, C.; Rakotoarison, S.R.; Gobin, V.; Samateh, A.L.; et al. Perioperative patient outcomes in the African Surgical Outcomes Study: A 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet 2018, 391, 1589–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pearse, R.M.; Clavien, P.A.; Demartines, N.; Fleisher, L.A.; Grocott, M.; Haddow, J.; Hoeft, A.; Holt, P.; Moreno, R.; Pritchard, N.; et al. Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: Prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, 601–609. [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodman, M.; Adams, N.; Cornell, T.; Kreukels, B.; Motmans, J.; Coleman, E. Size and Distribution of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Populations: A Narrative Review. Endocrinol. Metab. Clin. N. Am. 2019, 48, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.; Chandler, J.; Welch, V.; Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2019, ED000142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. World Bank Country and Lending Groups—World Bank Data Help Desk. Available online: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 6 December 2023).
  15. Kolaski, K.; Logan, L.R.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2023, 12, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Koak, I.; Akpnar, M.E.; Akr, Z.A.; Doan, M.; Bengisu, S.; Elikoyar, M.M. Laser Reduction Glottoplasty for Managing Androphonia After Failed Cricothyroid Approximation Surgery. J. Voice 2010, 24, 758–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aghabikloo, A.; Bahrami, M.; Saberi, S.M.; Emamhadi, M.A. Gender Identity Disorders in Iran Request for Sex Reassignment Surgery. Int. J. Med. Toxicol. Forensic Med. 2012, 2, 128–134. [Google Scholar]
  18. Majumder, A.; Sanyal, D. Outcome and preferences in female-to-male subjects with gender dysphoria: Experience from Eastern India. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2016, 20, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Majumder, A.; Sanyal, D. Outcome and preferences in male-to-female subjects with gender dysphoria: Experience from Eastern India. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2017, 21, 21–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Özkan, Ö.; Çinpolat, A.; Doğan, N.U.; Bektaş, G.; Dolay, K.; Gürkan, A.; Arıcı, C.; Doğan, S. Vaginal reconstruction with the modified rectosigmoid colon: Surgical technique, long-term results and sexual outcomes. J. Plast Surg. Hand Surg. 2018, 52, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naeimi, S.; Akhlaghdoust, M.; Chaichian, S.; Moradi, Y.; Jesmi, F.; Zarbati, N.; Jafarabadi, M. Quality of Life Changes in Iranian Patients Undergoing Female-to-Male Transsexual Surgery: A Prospective Study. Arch. Iran. Med. 2019, 22, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  22. Moisés da Silva, G.V.; Lobato, M.I.R.; Silva, D.C.; Schwarz, K.; Fontanari, A.M.V.; Costa, A.B.; Tavares, P.M.; Gorgen, A.R.H.; Gorgen, A.R.H.; Rosito, T.E. Male-to-Female Gender-Affirming Surgery: 20-Year Review of Technique and Surgical Results. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 639430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aires, M.M.; de Vasconcelos, D.; Lucena, J.A.; de Gomes, A.O.C.; de Moraes, B.T. Effect of Wendler glottoplasty on voice and quality of life of transgender women. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2023, 89, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bordas, N.; Stojanovic, B.; Bizic, M.; Szanto, A.; Djordjevic, M.L. Metoidioplasty: Surgical Options and Outcomes in 813 Cases. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 760284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bencic, M.; Stojanovic, B.; Bizic, M.; Djordjevic, M.L. Gender Incongruence: Musculocutaneous Latissimus Dorsi Phalloplasty. Indian J. Plast Surg. 2022, 55, 162. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bautista, K.; Sierra, A.; Rojas, W.; Rivera, A.; Tovar, H.; Silvia, C. Characterization of a Population of Adult Patients with Gender Dysphoria in San José Hospital, Bogotá (Colombia). Rev. Colomb. De Endocrinol. Diabetes Metab. 2022, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Thammapiwan, P.; Suwan, A.; Panyakhamlerd, K.; Suwajo, P.; Phanuphak, N.; Taechakraichana, N. The sexual function among transgender women who have undergone gender-affirming surgery using penile skin inversion vaginoplasty in Thailand. Eur. J. Plast Surg. 2022, 45, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Castanon, C.D.G.; Matic, S.; Bizic, M.; Stojanovic, B.; Bencic, M.; Grubor, N.; Pusica, S.; Korac, G.; Djordjevic, M.L.; Cdg, C. Laparoscopy Assisted Peritoneal Pull-Through Vaginoplasty in Transgender Women. Urology 2022, 166, 301–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Balaji, S.M. Facial feminization—Surgical modification for Indian, European and African faces. Ann. Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 6, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stojanovic, B.; Bizic, M.; Bencic, M.; Kojovic, V.; Majstorovic, M.; Jeftovic, M.; Stanojevic, D.; Djordjevic, M.L. One-Stage Gender-Confirmation Surgery as a Viable Surgical Procedure for Female-to-Male Transsexuals. J. Sex Med. 2017, 14, 741–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Telang, P.S. Facial Feminization Surgery: A Review of 220 Consecutive Patients. Indian J. Plast Surg. 2020, 53, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shams, M.G.; Hosein, M.; Motamedi, K. Case Report: Feminizing the Male Face. Eplasty 2009, 9, e2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kaushik, N.; **dal, O.; Bhardwaj, D.K. Sigma-lead Male-to-Female Gender Affirmation Surgery: Blending Cosmesis with Functionality. Plast Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open 2019, 7, e2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gupta, R.; Gupta, R.; Puri, A. Gender Incongruence: A Comparative Study of Urinary Complication Rates before and after the Incorporation of a Urethral Lengthening Technique during Masculinizing Genital Gender Affirmation Surgery. Indian J. Plast Surg. 2022, 55, 196. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gupta, R.; Gupta, R. Achieving Correct Axis and Good Depth in Gender Affirming Vaginoplasties by Penile-Perineoscrotal Flap Vaginoplasty. Indian J. Plast Surg. 2022, 55, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gao, H.; Wu, D.; Kong, X.; Zhu, L.; Jie, X.; Zhang, W.; Hu, Z.; Zhu, X. A Novel Technique of Urethroplasty Could Reduce Urethra-Related Complications in Phalloplasty With Urethral Lengthening. Sex Med. 2022, 10, 100571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Djordjevic, M.; Bizic, M.; Stanojevic, D.; Bumbasirevic, M.; Kojovic, V.; Majstorovic, M.; Acimovic, M.; Pandey, S.; Perovic, S. Urethral Lengthening in metoidioplasty (female-to-male sex reassignment surgery) by combined buccal mucosa graft and labia minora flap. Urology 2009, 74, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vukadinovic, V.; Stojanovic, B.; Majstorovic, M.; Milosevic, A. The Role of Clitoral Anatomy in Female to Male Sex Reassignment Surgery. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 437378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gupta, A.; Nanda, B.; Mangal, M.; Gambhir, S.; Reddy J, S. Gender reassignment surgery: Our experience of 20 cases. Curr. Med. Res. Pract. 2017, 7, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jeftovic, M.; Stojanovic, B.; Bizic, M.; Stanojevic, D.; Kisic, J.; Bencic, M.; Djordjevic, M.L. Hysterectomy with Bilateral Sal**o-Oophorectomy in Female-to-Male Gender Affirmation Surgery: Comparison of Two Methods. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 3472471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gümüşsoy, S.; Hortu, İ.; Alp Dal, N.; Dönmez, S.; Ergenoğlu, A.M. Quality of Life and Perceived Social Support Before and after Sex Reassignment Surgery. Clin. Nurs. Res. 2021, 31, 481–488. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sır, E.; Tuluy, Y. Evaluation of Life Improvement in Trans Men After Mastectomy: A Prospective Study Using the TRANS-Q. Aesthetic. Plast Surg. 2022, 46, 2556–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chaovanalikit, T.; Wirairat, K.; Sriswadpong, P. Quality of Life, Self-Esteem, and Depression Among Thai Transgender Women Before and After Male-to-Female Gender Confirmation Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Observational Study. Sex Med. 2022, 10, 100533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Monteiro Petry Jardim, L.M.; Cerentini, T.M.; Lobato, M.I.R.; Costa, Â.B.; Cardoso da Silva, D.; Schwarz, K.; Fontanari, A.M.V.; Schneider, M.A.; Rosito, T.E.; La Rosa, V.L.; et al. Sexual Function and Quality of Life in Brazilian Transgender Women Following Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. de Toni Abboud, M.; da Silva, G.V.M.; Gorgen, A.R.H.; Tavares, P.M.; Martins, F.E.; Rosito, T.E. Evaluation of the surgical and functional outcomes of secondary vaginoplasties with free skin mesh graft in patients following transfeminine genital reconstructive surgery. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2022, 11, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kumar, P. A Hospital Based Prospective Assessment of Correct Axis and Good Depth in Gender Affirming Vaginoplasties by Penile-Perineoscrotal Flap Vaginoplasty. Int. J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2023, 15, 456–462. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cheng, C.; Liu, C.; Ma, S.; Zhu, X.; Cheng, K.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Prefabricated Anterolateral Thigh Flaps for Phalloplasty in Female-to-Male Transsexuals. Chin. J. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 3, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stojanovic, B.; Djordjevic, M.L. Updates on metoidioplasty. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2023, 42, 956–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Top, H.; Balta, S. Transsexual Mastectomy: Selection of Appropriate Technique According to Breast Characteristics. Balkan Med. J. 2017, 34, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Djordjevic, M.L.; Stojanovic, B.; Bizic, M. Metoidioplasty: Techniques and outcomes. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2019, 8, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chaya, B.F.; Berman, Z.P.; Boczar, D.; Trilles, J.; Siringo, N.V.; Diep, G.K.; Colon, R.R.; Rodriguez, E.D. Gender Affirmation Surgery on the Rise: Analysis of Trends and Outcomes. LGBT Health 2022, 9, 582–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nolan, I.T.; Kuhner, C.J.; Dy, G.W. Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery. Transl. Androl. Urol. 2019, 8, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wright, J.D.; Chen, L.; Suzuki, Y.; Matsuo, K.; Hershman, D.L. National Estimates of Gender-Affirming Surgery in the US. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2330348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aizura, A.Z. Feminine Transformations: Gender Reassignment Surgical Tourism in Thailand. Med. Anthropol. 2010, 29, 424–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Serbia: A Thriving Hub for Affordable and Quality Medical Tourism|LinkedIn. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/serbia-thriving-hub-affordable-quality-medical-gilliam-elliott-jr--qej5e/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  56. Ding, C.; Khondker, A.; Goldenberg, M.G.; Kwong, J.C.C.; Lajkosz, K.; Potter, E.; Millman, A.; Krakowsky, Y.; Perlis, N. Urinary complications after penile inversion vaginoplasty in transgender women Systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2023, 17, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gaither, T.W.; Awad, M.A.; Osterberg, E.C.; Murphy, G.P.; Romero, A.; Bowers, M.L.; Breyer, B.N. Postoperative Complications following Primary Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty among 330 Male-to-Female Transgender Patients. J. Urol. 2018, 199, 760–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Falcone, M.; Timpano, M.; Ceruti, C.; Sedigh, O.; Oderda, M.; Gillo, A.; Preto, M.; Sibona, M.; Garaffa, G.; Gontero, P.; et al. A Single-center Analysis on the Learning Curve of Male-to-Female Penoscrotal Vaginoplasty by Multiple Surgical Measures. Urology 2017, 99, 234–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Barik, R.; Sharma, P. What Constraints Financial Inclusion for the Transgender Community? Field-Based Evid. Odisha 2020, 13, 66–80. [Google Scholar]
  60. Boskey, E.R.; Kant, J.D. Unreasonable Expectations: A Call for Training and Educational Transparency in Gender-affirming Surgery. Plast Reconstr. Surg. Glob Open 2023, 11, E4734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adovor, E.; Czaika, M.; Docquier, F.; Moullan, Y. Medical brain drain: How many, where and why? J. Health Econ. 2021, 76, 102409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sha, Y.; Dong, W.; Tang, W.; Zheng, L.; Huang, X.; Muessig, K.E.; Tucker, J.D. Gender minority stress and access to health care services among transgender women and transfeminine people: Results from a cross-sectional study in China. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 03580 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram for Inclusion and Exclusion of Studies [12].
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram for Inclusion and Exclusion of Studies [12].
Jcm 13 03580 g001
Jcm 13 03580 g002
Figure 2. A World Map Illustrating Low and Middle-Income Countries Based on GAS Literature Output.
Figure 2. A World Map Illustrating Low and Middle-Income Countries Based on GAS Literature Output.
Jcm 13 03580 g002
Table 1. Characteristics of Studies Included.
Table 1. Characteristics of Studies Included.
Lead Author,
Year of Publication		CountryStudy DesignMean Age, YearsSurgeries (No.)Complications (%)No. (%) of Patients with at Least One ComplicationDomains Assessed for Post-Operative Satisfaction (% Patients with Improvement)Mean Follow-Up (Months)
Koak. 2010 [16]Turkey δCase series, multi-center29.2Laser reduction glottoplasty (6)Edema (100%)6 (100%)Voice quality (100%)
Voice-related QOL showed significant improvement 		13.4
Aghabikloo, 2012 [17]Iran ΦCross-sectional, single center24.9Feminizing surgery (44)
Masculinizing surgery (25)		NANANANA
Majumder, 2016 [18]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single centerNAMastectomy (9)
Hysterectomy (7)
Sal**o-oopherectomy (7)
Phalloplasty (1)		NRNRNA19.2
Majumder, 2017 [19]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single center25.8Breast augmentation (13)
Orchiectomy (14)		NRNRNA22.8
Ozkan, 2018 [20]Turkey δRetrospective cohort, single center40Vaginoplasty (9)Hematoma (2%)2 (22.2%)Aesthetics (100%)
Sexual function (93.3%)		37.2
Naeimi, 2019 [21]Iran ΦProspective cohort, single center34.2Masculinizing surgery (42)NANAMean QoL of total and all other domains show significant improvement using validated PROM6
Moises da Silva, 2021 [22]Brazil δRetrospective cohort, single center32.2Vaginoplasty (216)Granulation tissue formation (20.5%)
Urethral meatus stricture (20.5%)
Introital stricture (15.4%)
Wound dehiscence (12.6%)
Hematoma/excessive bleeding (8.9%)
Need for transfusion (7.9%)
Tissue necrosis (1.9%)
Urethral fistula (1.9%)
Intra-operative rectal injury (1.9%)
Rectovaginal fistula (0.9%)		82 (44%)Sexual function (85%)16
Aires, 2021 [23]Brazil δProspective cohort, multi-center35.4Glottoplasty (7)Wound dehiscence (14.3%)
Granulation Tissue Formation (14.3%)		2 (28.6%)Voice-related QoL showed significant improvement13.7
Bordas, 2021 [24]Serbia δRetrospective cohort, single center24.4Metoidioplasty Γ (813)
Hysterectomy (156)
Mastectomy (58)		Urethral stricture Γ (55%)
Urethral fistula Γ (10%)
Vaginal remnant Γ (9.6%)
Testicular displacement Γ (3.2%)
Testicular implant rejection Γ (2%)		207 (25.5%)Tactile and erogenous sensation Γ (100%)
Aesthetics Γ (99%)		94
Bencic, 2022 [25]Serbia δCase series, single centerNAPhalloplasty (160)Urethral fistula (25%)
Implant rejection (3.8%)
Surgical site infection (3.8%)
Urethral stricture (2.5%)
Flap necrosis (1.9%)		NAAesthetics (100%)
Erogenous sensation (100%)
Tactile sensation (14.4%)		52
Bautista, 2022 [26]Colombia δCase series, single centerNAMastectomy (3)
Vaginoplasty (2)
Augmentation mammaplasty (2)		NANANANA
Thammapiwan, 2022 [27]Thailand δCross sectional, multi-center29.3Vaginoplasty (69)NANAQoL
(97.1%)
Sexual function (17.4%)		NA
Castanon, 2022 [28]Serbia δCase series, single center27Vaginoplasty (52)Hematoma (5.8%)
Superficial necrosis (5.8%)
Wound dehiscence (5.8%)		7 (13.5%)Sensitivity (96%)
Lubrication (96%)
Sexual function (96%)		29
Balaji, 2016 [29]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single center26.3Facial feminizing surgery (7)NA0 (0%)Overall satisfaction (100%)NA
Stojanovic, 2017 [30]Serbia δRetrospective cohort, single center31.5Metoidioplasty Γ (473)

Hysterectomy Λ (137)

One-stage GAS * (79)		Perineal cyst * (11.5%)
Urethral fistula * (5.1%)
Urethral stricture * (3.8%)
Testicular implant rejection * (3.8%)
Urethral diverticulum * (1.3%)
Nipple graft necrosis * (3.8%)
Breast hematoma * (1.3%)		20 (25.3%)Voiding * (100%)
Erection * (100%)
Erogenous sensation * (100%)
Aesthetics * (96.2%)
Sexual function * (87.3%)		44
Telang, 2020 [31]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single center38Facial Feminization Surgery (220)Minor wound dehiscence (1.8%)
Contour irregularities (0.9%)
Hematoma (0.5%)		8 (3.6%)Overall Satisfaction (100%)40
Shams, 2009 [32]Iran ΦCase series, single center23Facial Feminization Surgery (10)NANAAesthetics (100%)NA
Kaushik, 2019 [33]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single center39Vaginoplasty (386)Mucorrhoea (6.2%)
Mucosal Prolapse (1.5%)
Dyspareunia (1.5%)
Stricture introitus (1.5%)Urinary Retention (1.3%)
Paralytic Ileus (0.8%)
Wound Infection (0.8%)
Colon Graft Loss (0.5%)
Clitoral Necrosis (0.5%)		78 (20.2%)Overall Satisfaction (94%)34
Gupta, 2022 [34]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single centerNAPhalloplasty (551)Urethral Stricture (22%)
Urethral Fistula (9.8%)		121 (22%)NANA
Gupta, 2022 [35]India ΦRetrospective cohort, single center29Vaginoplasty (183)NANASensitivity (100%)
Sexual function (76%)		31
Gao, 2022 [36]China δRetrospective cohort, single center25.3Phalloplasty (80)Urethral Fistula (35%)
Flap necrosis (32.5%)
Urethral Stricture (25%)		28 (35%)Satisfaction with voiding was high, with no significant difference between phalloplasty approaches;
QoL improved, with significant differences between the traditional and modified approaches		6.1
Djordjevic, 2009 [37]Serbia δProspective cohort, single center32Metoidioplasty (38)Urethral Fistula (5.3%)
Urethral Erosion (2.6%)		3 (7.9%)Aesthetics (100%)22
Vukadinovic, 2014 [38]Serbia δProspective cohort, single center29Metoidioplasty (97)Urethral Fistula (6.2%)
Urethral Stricture (2.1%)
Testicular Displacement (2.1%)		27 (27.8%)Voiding (100%)
Erection (100%)
Erogenous Sensation (100%)
Aesthetics (95.9%)
Sexual Function (87.6%)		30
Gupta, 2017 [39] India ΦRetrospective cohort, single centerNAMastectomy (20)NANANANA
Jeftovic, 2018 [40]Serbia δRetrospective cohort, single center28.5Hysterectomy (124)NA2 (1.6%)NA41
Gumussoy, 2022 [41]Turkey δProspective cohort, single center27.3Mastectomy (66)
Hysterectomy (66)		NANANA6
Sir, 2022 [42]Turkey δProspective cohort, single center25Mastectomy (71)NANAOverall satisfaction using validated PROMNA
Chaovanalikit, 2022 [43]Thailand δProspective cohort, single center26.2Vaginoplasty (37)NA0 (0%)QoL and self-esteem showed significant improvement;All patients with pre-operative depression (13.5%) reported no depression post-operativelyNA
Monteiro Petry Jardim, 2022 [44]Brazil δRetrospective cohort, single center39.9Vaginoplasty (26)Rectovaginal Fistula (3.8%)7 (26.9%)Overall satisfaction (84.6%)
Sexual function (73.1%)
Improvement in QoL across all domains was high (range: 72.9% to 93.7%) using validated PROM		NA
de Toni Abboud, 2022 [45]Brazil δRetrospective cohort, single center41Vaginoplasty (35)Introital stenosis (22.9%)
Rectal Fistula (8.6%)
Wound Dehiscence (2.9%)
Urethral fistula (2.9%)		10 (28.6%)Overall satisfaction (77.1%)
Sexual function (77.1%)		62
Kumar, 2023 [46] India ΦProspective cohort, single center29Vaginoplasty (100)Bleeding (4.8%)1 (4.8%)Sexual function (76%)11
Cheng, 2021 [47]China δRetrospective cohort, single center25.6Phalloplasty (21)Urethral Fistula (52.4%)
Urethral Stricture (5.8%)		12 (57.1%)Aesthetics-phallus appearance (76.2%)
Aesthetics-scar (81%)		12
Stojanovic, 2023 [48]Serbia δRetrospective cohort, single center29Metoidioplasty (938)Urethral Fistula (12.3%)
Perineal cyst (9.8%)
Implant rejection (5.9%)
Urethral Stricture (2.6%)
Diverticulum (1.7%)		143 (15.2%)Sexual Function (100%)
Voiding (99%)		NA
Top, 2017 [49]Turkey δProspective cohort, single center28.2Mastectomy (52)Superficial necrosis (9.6%)
Hematoma (3.8%)		7 (13.4%)Aesthetics (96%)28
Acronyms: QoL: Quality of Life, No.: number, NR: Not Reported, NA: Not Applicable. Type of surgery—Γ: Metoidioplasty, Λ: Hysterectomy; Country classification—δ: Upper-middle income country, Φ: Lower-middle income country. *: One-stage GAS (chest masculinization, total transvaginal hysterectomy with bilateral adnexectomy, vaginectomy, metoidioplasty, urethral lengthening, scrotoplasty, and implantation of bilateral testicular prostheses).
Table 2. (A). Global Distribution and Incidence of Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures. (B). Frequency of Complications Following Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.
Table 2. (A). Global Distribution and Incidence of Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures. (B). Frequency of Complications Following Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.
(A)
ProcedureIncidence (n = 3584)Countries (in Order of Volume)
Metoidioplasty63.3% (n = 2270)Serbia (n = 2270) [24,30]
Hysterectomy33.9% (n = 1214)Serbia (n = 593) [18,34]
India (n = 558) [18,34]
Phalloplasty22.7% (n = 813)India (n = 552) [18,34]
Serbia (n = 160) [25]
China (n = 101) [36]
Chest masculinizing surgery13.1% (n = 471)Serbia (n = 261) [24,25]
Turkey (n = 186) [41,42,49]
India (n = 29) [18]
(B)
ProcedureComplicationIncidence
Metoidioplasty (n = 2270)Perineal cyst3.5% (n = 79) [24,25]
Urethral fistula3.3% (n = 76) [24,25]
Urethral stricture0.9% (n = 20) [24,25]
Hysterectomy (n = 1214)
and Phalloplasty (n = 813)		Urethral stricture14% (n = 283) [18,24,30,34]
Urethral fistula12.4% (n = 252) [18,24,30,34]
Implant rejection0.9% (n = 20) [18,24,30,34]
Flap necrosis2.1% (n = 42) [18,25,34,36]
N.B.: Complication rates were computed by dividing the number of observed complications by the total number of patients in studies where the complication occurred. Reported rates may underestimate the true complication rates.
Table 3. (A). Global Distribution and Incidence of Feminizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures. (B). Frequency of Complications Following Feminizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.
Table 3. (A). Global Distribution and Incidence of Feminizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures. (B). Frequency of Complications Following Feminizing Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.
(A)
ProcedureIncidence (n = 1273)Countries (in Order of Volume)
Vaginoplasty74.5% (n = 1103)India (n = 685) [19,33,35]
Brazil (n = 249) [22]
Thailand (n = 110) [27]
Serbia (n = 52) [28]
Turkey (n = 9) [20]
Facial feminizing surgery16.5% (n = 244)India (n = 227) [29,31]
Iran (n = 10) [32]
Brazil (n = 7) [23]
Thyrochondroplasty4.4% (n = 65)India (n = 55) [31]
Iran (n = 10) [32]
Breast augmentation1% (n = 13)India (n = 13) [19]
(B)
ProcedureComplicationIncidence
Vaginoplasty (n = 1103)Development of granulomatous tissue3.9% (n = 44) [22,23]
Urethral stricture3.9% (n = 44) [19,20,22,27,28,33,35]
Introital stricture3.5% (n = 39) [19,22,27,33,35]
Facial feminizing surgery (n = 244)Wound dehiscence 2.1% (n = 5) [29,31,32]
Contour irregularities0.8% (n = 2) [29,31]
Thyrochondroplasty (n = 65)Wound dehiscence 6.2% (n = 4) [31,32]
Contour irregularities3.1% (n = 2) [31,32]
N.B.: Complication rates were computed by dividing the number of observed complications by the total number of patients in studies where the complication occurred. Reported rates may underestimate the true complication rates.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shah, V.; Hassan, B.; Hassan, R.; Alexis, M.; Bhoopalam, M.; Agandi, L.; Liang, F. Gender-Affirming Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 3580. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13123580

AMA Style

Shah V, Hassan B, Hassan R, Alexis M, Bhoopalam M, Agandi L, Liang F. Gender-Affirming Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(12):3580. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13123580

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shah, Viraj, Bashar Hassan, Rena Hassan, Malory Alexis, Myan Bhoopalam, Lorreen Agandi, and Fan Liang. 2024. "Gender-Affirming Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 12: 3580. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13123580

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop