Shallow-depth vaginoplasty: preoperative goals, postoperative satisfaction, and why shallow-depth vaginoplasty should be offered as a standard feminizing genital gender-affirming surgery option

Abstract

Abstract Background Shallow-depth vaginoplasty (SDV), also referred to as vaginoplasty without creation of a vaginal canal, is an understudied alternative to full-depth vaginoplasty (FDV), or vaginoplasty with creation of a vaginal canal. SDV is associated with fewer short- and long-term risks and shorter recovery, and does not require a lifelong commitment to vaginal dilation and douching. Aim To describe a surgical technique for SDV that creates a dimpled introitus, together with clinical outcomes, decision-making prioritization, and satisfaction data. We hypothesize that SDV patients prioritize comparable appearance and sexual function to FDV over shorter-term risk factors, and experience high satisfaction. Methods We describe (1) a surgical technique for SDV; (2) the proportion of patients who underwent SDV vs. FDV, with SDV complication rates; and (3) the results of an anonymous, electronic questionnaire administered via Qualtrics that assessed SDV patient demographics, terminology preferences, prioritization of decision-guiding factors for choosing SDV over FDV, and postoperative satisfaction across various domains. Outcomes A total of 110 patients underwent primary feminizing genital gender-affirming surgery at a single institution between April 2017 and July 2022: 35 (32%) of 110 underwent SDV and 75 (68%) underwent FDV. The 35 SDV patients were invited to answer the study questionnaire, of which 29 (83%) completed it (mean age 51.9 ± 16.7 years, mean body mass index 27.3 ± 5.3 kg/m2). Results All but one survey respondent met one or more of the following characteristics: (1) ≥40 years of age, (2) exclusively feminine-identifying sexual partners, and/or (3) significant aversion to performing long-term vaginal dilation and douching. Ranking of 8 decision-guiding factors revealed prioritization of long-term over short-term outcomes. Postoperatively, patients reported high satisfaction across all 3 domains. When asked if they had to choose between SDV and FDV over again, 86% reported that they would choose SDV. While 14% would choose FDV, all but one reported new interest in receptive vaginal intercourse due to finding masculine-identifying partners post-SDV surgery. A total of 27% of SDV patients experienced complications that required additional surgeries; 82% of complications were related to urinary spraying. Clinical Implications SDV is a lower-risk alternative to FDV and is associated with reduced postoperative maintenance and high postoperative satisfaction. Strengths and Limitations This study describes the clinical outcomes of the largest documented cohort of patients to undergo SDV to date. Limitations include recall bias due to the retrospective survey and use of nonvalidated questions attributed to the paucity of validated gender-affirming surgery questionnaires. Conclusion SDV’s appeal to a large subset of patients (32% in this study), low complication rate, high satisfaction, and low decisional regret suggests that this surgical option should be offered to all patients seeking feminizing genital gender-affirming surgery.