Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
https://app.periodikos.com.br/journal/rcbc/article/doi/10.1590/0100-6991e-2026004325
Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
Original Article

Comparação de duas técnicas de cirurgia de adequação sexual do masculino para feminino - experiência com 59 casos consecutivos

Comparison of two male-to-female sexual reassignment surgery techniques - experience with 59 consecutive cases

Rodrigo Itocazo Rocha; Wilson Cintra Junior; Odair Gomes Paiva; Amanda Vitiello Pereira Brosco; Sidney Glina

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-2026004325 RCBC, vol.53, e2026004325, 2026
PDF Português
PDF English
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 51

Resumo

Introdução: Apesar da recente expansão e padronização das terapias para pessoas transgênero, as evidências científicas relacionadas a esses tratamentos, incluindo os cirúrgicos, ainda estão em processo de aprimoramento.

Objetivo: Comparar as taxas de complicações entre duas técnicas cirúrgicas de redesignação sexual (CRS) de homem para mulher: inversão peniana com posicionamento da glande no fundo do canal vaginal (VG) e inversão peniana utilizando a glande para confecção do clitóris (VC).

Método: Trata-se de uma coorte observacional retrospectiva que incluiu 59 mulheres transgênero submetidas à cirurgia de redesignação sexual utilizando as técnicas VG (grupo I, n=25) e VC (grupo II, n=34), operadas entre 2015 e 2019. Os grupos foram comparados por idade, peso, altura, índice de massa corporal, período de internação, óbito e tipos de complicações, como infecção do trato urinário, conformação do canal vaginal, revestimento do canal vaginal, fístulas, perfurações intestinais, volume vulvar à estimulação sexual, aspecto vulvar, eventos tromboembólicos e necessidade de reoperação. A análise estatística foi realizada utilizando o teste t de Student, o teste de Fischer e o teste de Pearson.

Resultados: Os grupos não apresentaram diferença quanto à idade, peso, IMC e período de internação. Também não houve diferenças em relação a algumas complicações, como infecção/deiscência (p=0,569), fístulas (p=0,71), perfurações retais (p=0,424), excesso de volume vulvar durante a estimulação sexual (p=0,122), aspecto vulvar (p=0,630) e eventos tromboembólicos (p=0,302). Houve diferença entre os grupos em relação à conformação do canal urinário (p=0,020) e vaginal (p=0,002), revestimento neovaginal (p=0,011) e necessidade de reoperação (p=0,006), com menores taxas de complicação no grupo VC. As complicações mostraram correlação fraca ao comparar queixas urinárias com volume vulvar durante a estimulação sexual (ρ=0,462); pequenas lesões do canal vaginal com fístulas (ρ=0,482); pequenas lesões do canal vaginal versus necessidade de reintervenção cirúrgica (ρ=0,477) e excesso de volume vulvar na estimulação sexual versus necessidade de reintervenção (ρ=0,494). Todos os outros testes de Pearson mostraram correlação nula ou muito fraca entre as variáveis.

Implicações Clínicas: A comparação das duas técnicas de cirurgia de redesignação sexual (CRS) realizadas no mesmo serviço permite afirmar que a técnica VC apresenta vantagens, com menores taxas de alguns tipos de complicações.

Pontos Fortes e Limitações: Esta é a primeira publicação conhecida a comparar dois tipos de CRS em mulheres trans, realizadas no mesmo serviço. Porém, trata-se de revisão retrospectiva de pacientes operadas inicialmente com a técnica da glande no fundo do canal vaginal (VG) seguidas pelo grupo operado com a técnica VC, o que pode gerar viés e esta é uma limitação do nosso estudo.

Conclusão: A técnica VC apresentou menor incidência de complicações urinárias, de conformação do canal vaginal e do revestimento vaginal e, consequentemente, menor necessidade de reintervenções cirúrgicas do que a técnica VG.

Palavras-chave

Disforia de Gênero; Pessoas Transgênero; Genitália; Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Urogenitais; Procedimentos de Redesignação Sexual

Abstract

Introduction: Despite recent expansion and standardization of therapies for transgender people, the scientific evidence related to these treatments, including surgical ones, is still improving.

Objective: To compare the complication rates between two male-to-female (MtF) techniques of sex reassignment surgery (SRS): penile inversion with positioning of the glans at the bottom of the vaginal canal (VG) and penile inversion using the glans to make the clitoris (VC).

Methods: This is a retrospective observational cohort that included 59 transgender women who underwent sex reassignment surgery with VG (group I, n=25) and VC (group II, n=34) techniques, operated on between 2015 and 2019. We compared groups by age, weight, height, body mass index, length of hospital stay, death, and types of complications, such as urinary tract infection, vaginal canal conformation, vaginal canal lining, fistulas, intestinal perforations, vulvar volume on sexual stimulation, vulvar appearance, thromboembolic events, and need for reoperation. We used the Student’s t, the Fischer’s, and the Pearson’s tests for statistical analysis.

Results: The groups did not differ in terms of age, weight, BMI, and length of hospital stay. There were also no differences regarding complications such as infection/dehiscence (p=0.569), fistulas (p=0.71), rectal perforations (p=0.424), increased vulvar volume during sexual stimulation (p=0.122), vulvar aspect (p=0.630) and thromboembolic events (p=0.302). The groups differed as to the conformation of the urinary canal (p=0.020) and vaginal canal (p=0.002), neovaginal lining (p=0.011), and need for reoperation (p=0.006), with lower complication rates in the VC group. There were weak correlations between the complication pairs urinary complaints and increased vulvar volume during sexual stimulation (ρ=0.462), small lesions of the vaginal canal and fistulas (ρ=0.482), small lesions of the vaginal canal and the need for surgical reintervention (ρ=0.477), and increased vulvar volume during sexual stimulation and the need for reintervention (ρ=0.494). All other Pearson tests showed no or very weak correlations between variables.

Clinical Implications: The comparison of the two SRS techniques performed in the same service allows us to affirm that the VC technique has advantages, with lower rates of some types of complications.

Strengths and Limitations: This is the first known publication comparing two types of SRS in trans women, performed in the same service. However, this is a retrospective review of patients initially operated with the glans technique at the bottom of the vaginal canal (VG) followed by the group operated with the VC technique, which may generate bias.

Conclusion: The VC technique had a lower incidence of urinary complications, conformation of the vaginal canal, and vaginal lining and, consequently, less need for surgical reinterventions than the VG technique.

Keywords

Gender Dysphoria; Transgender people; Genitalia; Urogenital Surgical Procedures; Sex Reassignment Procedures

References

1 Benjamin H. Transsexualism and transvestism as psychosomatic and somatopsychic syndromes. Am J Psychother. 1954; 8(2): 219-30. DOI: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1954.8.2.219.

2 Krege S, Bex A, Lümmen G, Rübben H. Male-to-female transsexualism: a technique, results and long-term follow-up in 66 patients. BJU Int. 2001; 88(4): 396-402. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02323.x.

3 Soli M, Brunocilla E, Bertaccini A, Palmieri F, Barbieri B, Martorana G. Male to female gender reassignment: modified surgical technique for creating the neoclitoris and mons veneris. J Sex Med. 2008; 5(1): 210-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00632.x.

4 Imbimbo C, Verze P, Palmieri A, Longo N, Fusco F, Arcaniolo D, et al. A report from a single institute's 14-year experience in treatment of male-to-female transsexuals. J Sex Med. 2009;6(10): 2736-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01379.x.

5 Sutcliffe PA, Dixon S, Akehurst RL, Wilkinson A, Shippan A, White S, et al. Evaluation of surgical procedures for sex reassignment: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009; 62(3): 294-306; discussion 306-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2007.12.009.

6 Baranyi A, Piber D, Rothenhäusler HB. Male-to-female transsexualism. Sex reassignment surgery from a biopsychosocial perspective. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2009; 159(21-22): 548-57. DOI: D10.1007/s10354-009-0693-5.

7 Klein C, Gorzalka BB. Sexual functioning in transsexuals following hormone therapy and genital surgery: a review. J Sex Med. 2009; 6(11)2922-39; discussion 2940-1. DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01370.x.

8 Padula WV, Baker K. Coverage for Gender-Affirming Care: Making Health Insurance Work for Transgender Americans. LGBT Health. 2017; 4(4): 244-7. DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2016.0099.

9 World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Available from: https://www.wpath.org/about/mission-and-vision. [Accessed 14rd November, 2019].

10 Witacre FE, Alden RH. Changes in squamous epithelium following the surgical treatment of absence of the vagina. Ann Surg. 1951; 133(6): 814-8. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-195106000-00008.

11 Abbe R. New methods of creating a vagina in a case of congenital absence. Med Rec. 1898; 54: 836-8.

12 McIndoe AH, Banister JB. An operation for the cure of congenital absence of the vagina. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1938; 45: 490-4.

13 Selvaggi G, Ceulemans P, De Cuypere G, Van Landuyt K, Blondee P, Hamdi M, et al. Gender identity disorder: general overview and surgical treatment for vaginoplasty in male-to-female transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116(6): 135e-145e. DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000185999.71439.06.

14 Selvaggi G, Bellringer J. Gender reassignment surgery: an overview. Nat Rev Urol. 2011; 8(5): 274-82. DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2011.46.

15 Baldwin JC. Formation of an artificial vagina by intestinal transplantation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1907; 56: 636-8.

16 Ravat J, Ahmed I, Pandey A, Khan TR, Singh S, Wahklu A, et al. Vaginal agenesis: experience with sigmoid colon neovaginoplasty. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2010; 15(1): 19-22. DOI: 10.4103/0971-9261.69136.

17 Hage JJ. Vaginoplasty in male-to-female transsexuals by inversion of penile and scrotal skin. In: Ehrlich RM, Alter GJ. Reconstructive and plastic surgery of the external genitalia. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1999. pp. 294-300.

18 Giraldo F, Mora MJ, Solano A, González C, Smith-Fernández V. Male perineogenital anatomy and clinical applications in genital reconstructions in male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002; 109(4): 1301-10. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200204010-00014.

19 Gillies H, Millard Jr RD. Genitalia. The principles and art of plastic surgery. London: Butterworth; 1957. pp. 369-88.

20 Perovic SV, Stanojevic DS, Djordjevic ML. Vaginoplasty in male transsexuals using penile skin and a urethral flap. BJU Int. 2000; 86(7): 843-50. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00934.x.

21 Karim RB, Hage JJ, Mulder JW. Neovaginoplasty in male transsexuals: review of surgical techniques and recommendations regarding eligibility. Ann Plast Surg. 1996; 37(6): 669-75. PMID: 8988784.

22 Small MP. Penile and scrotal inversion vaginoplasty for male to female transsexuals. Urology. 1987; 29(6): 593-7. DOI: D10.1016/0090-4295(87)90098-7.

23 Eldh J. Construction of a neovagina with preservation of the glans penis as a clitoris in male transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 91(5): 895-900; discussion 901-3. PMID: 8460193.

24 van Noort DE, Nicolai JP. Comparison of two methods of vagina construction in transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 91(7): 1308-15. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199306000-00018.

25 Rubin SO. Sex-reassignment surgery male-to-female. Review, own results and report of a new technique using the glans penis as a pseudoclitoris. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1993; 154: 1-28. PMID: 8140401.

26 Jarolim L. Surgical conversion of genitalia in transexual patients. BJU Int. 2000; 85(7): 851-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00624.x.

27 Turner UG 3rd, Edlich RF, Edgerton MT. Male transsexualism: a review of genital surgical reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978; 132(2):119-33. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(78)90913-4.

28 Karim RB, Hage JJ, Bouman FG, de Ruyter R, van Kesteren PJ. Refinements of pre, intra and postoperative care to prevent complications of vaginoplasty in male transsexuals. Ann Plast Surg. 1995; 35(3):279-84. DOI: 10.1097/00000637-199509000-00010.

29 Laub DR, Fisk N. A rehabilitation program for gender dysphoria syndrome by surgical sex change. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974; 53(4):388-403. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-197404000-00003.

30 Foerster DW, Reynolds CL. Construction of natural appearing female genitalia in the male transsexual. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979; 64(3):306-12. DOI: 10.1097/00006534-197909000-00003.

31 Glenn JF. One-stage operation for male transsexuals. J Urol. 1980; 123(3):396-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)55952-2.

32 Siemssen PA, Matzen SH. Neovaginal construction in vaginal aplasia and sex-reassignment surgery. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1997; 31(1):47-50. DOI: 10.3109/02844319709010504.

33 Neto RR, Hintz F, Krege S, Rübben H, Vom Dorp F. Gender reassignment surgery - a 13-year review of surgical outcomes. Int Braz J Urol. 2012; 38(1):97-107. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382012000100014.

34 Lawrence AA. Factors associated with satisfaction or regret following male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Arch Sex Behav. 2003; 32(4): 299-315. DOI: 10.1023/a:1024086814364.

35 Schechter LS, D'Arpa S, Cohen MN, Kocjancic E, Claes KEY, Monstrey S. Gender confirmation surgery: guiding principles. J Sex Med. 2017; 14(6): 852-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.04.001.
 

 

Submitted date:
11/11/2025

Accepted date:
04/23/2026

6aa7f62ca953951dce0b3222 rcbc Articles
1809-4546 (Electronic) 0100-6991 (Printed)
RCBC ©2026 All rights reserved for this website content. Articles follow their own licenses.

RCBC

Share this page
Page Sections