外科医調査は性別手術の後悔を0.2〜0.3%とした――回答率30%と外科医の記憶に基づく

会話の導き方――性別肯定手術後の後悔の種類とその関連する病因

Authors: Sasha Karan Narayan, Rayisa Hontscharuk, Sara Danker, Jess Guerriero, Angela Carter, Gaines Blasdel, Rachel Bluebond-Langner, Randi Ettner, Asa Radix, Loren Schechter, Jens Urs Berli
Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine
Year: 2021
Source: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-6204

Summary

Gender surgeons who attended WPATH and USPATH conferences (meetings of trans health professionals) were asked how many patients they had seen who regretted surgery or wanted it reversed. Fewer than a third replied. Together they recalled 62 such patients out of an estimated 18,000 to 27,000 they had operated on, so the authors put regret at 0.2–0.3%. Where reasons were known, the most common was a change in gender identity or a wrong diagnosis, then family or social rejection, then relationship problems. The authors suggest sorting regret into three types: 'true gender-related', 'social' and 'medical'. This grouping is useful for discussion. But the regret figure cannot be trusted: it depends on surgeons' memory, on regretful patients going back to a surgeon, and on numbers from a self-selected minority who answered.

Key findings

招待された外科医154人のうち46人（30%）が回答しました。大半は米国（67%）または欧州（22%）で働いており、65%は10年以上の経験がありました。
彼らは18,125～27,325人のトランスジェンダーの患者を手術したと推定し、手術を後悔した、または取り消しを求めた62人を覚えており、約0.2～0.3%でした。
外科医の57%が、後悔のある患者を少なくとも1人診ていました。62件のうち45件（73%）は性器の手術、13件（21%）は胸または乳房の手術でした。
理由が分かっている場合（患者46人）、42%は性自認の変化または誤診に関係し、15%は家族や社会からの拒絶、11%は人間関係の問題でした。
著者らは、取り消しの要望を、「真に性別に関連する」後悔（42%）、「社会的」後悔（37%）、「医学的」後悔（8%）に分類しました。これらの患者の24%に、手術後の合併症がありました。
外科医の91%は、取り消しの手術の前に新たなメンタルヘルスの評価を求めるとし、88%は、次のWPATHガイドラインが取り消しの手術を扱うことを望んでいました。
著者らは、調査はどのくらい一般的かを割り出すのに向いておらず、過去の研究の検討も系統的ではなかったと認めています。

Abstract

Background: A rare, but consequential, risk of gender affirming surgery (GAS) is post-operative regret resulting in a request for surgical reversal. Studies on regret and surgical reversal are scarce, and there is no standard terminology regarding either etiology and/or classification of the various forms of regret. This study includes a survey of surgeons' experience with patient regret and requests for reversal surgery, a literature review on the topic of regret, and expert, consensus opinion designed to establish a classification system for the etiology and types of regret experienced by some patients.

Methods: This anonymous survey was sent to the 154 surgeons who registered for the 2016 World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) conference and the 2017 USPATH conference. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A MeSH search of the gender-affirming outcomes literature was performed on PubMed for relevant studies pertaining to regret. Original research and review studies that were thought to discuss regret were included for full text review.

Results: The literature is inconsistent regarding etiology and classification of regret following GAS. Of the 154 surgeons queried, 30% responded to our survey. Cumulatively, these respondents treated between 18,125 and 27,325 individuals. Fifty-seven percent of surgeons encountered at least one patient who expressed regret, with a total of 62 patients expressing regret (0.2-0.3%). Etiologies of regret were varied and classified as either: (I) true gender-related regret (42%), (II) social regret (37%), and (III) medical regret (8%). The surgeons' experience with patient regret and request for reversal was consistent with the existing literature.

Conclusions: In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature. Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic.

Conclusion

In this study, regret following GAS was rare and was consistent with the existing literature. Regret can be classified as true gender-related regret, social regret and medical regret resulting from complications, function, pre-intervention decision making. Guidelines in transgender health should offer preventive strategies as well as treatment recommendations, should a patient experience regret. Future studies and scientific discourse are encouraged on this important topic.

Methodological limitations

Numbers don't match up: The regret count includes patients who had surgery with any surgeon, but the total patients figure is only the replying surgeons' own patients. So the result is not a true rate. Cohn (2023) called the method hard to interpret.
Few surgeons replied: Only 30% answered. Surgeons who rarely see regret may have been more or less likely to reply, and the experience of the rest is unknown.
Many regretful patients never return: Many people with regret, or who detransition, never go back to their surgeon or gender clinic. Littman (2021) found only 24% told their clinicians. So the survey probably undercounts regret.
Based on memory and rough ranges: Patient numbers and regret cases were recalled from memory and given as ranges, which were added up to get 18,125 to 27,325.
Regret not defined, follow-up unknown: The survey deliberately left 'regret' undefined. Surgeons did not routinely ask about regret, and how long they kept track of patients is unknown.
Narrow view: Only breast and genital surgery were covered, and only surgeons were asked. Mental health clinicians and hormone doctors, who may hear about regret first, were not surveyed.
Informal review of past studies: The authors admit their review was not systematic and may have picked studies selectively. It mostly repeats older low-regret figures that had their own dropout problems (for example Wiepjes 2018, which lost track of 36% of patients).
Untested categories: The 'true', 'social' and 'medical' regret types come from expert opinion and have not been tested to see if they work reliably.
Authors' roles: Several authors hold leadership roles in WPATH or on its guideline committee, and most are surgeons or clinicians who provide these treatments. These roles are unpaid and disclosed, but they matter for how the low-regret conclusion is presented.
Possible double counting: The authors note that a patient may have seen more than one of the surgeons who replied, which could inflate the count.

detrans.ai

Summary

Key findings

Abstract

Conclusion