Ankieta wśród chirurgów określa żal po operacji płci na 0,2–0,3% – na podstawie 30% odpowiedzi i wspomnień chirurgów

Kierowanie rozmową – rodzaje żalu po operacji afirmującej płeć i związane z nimi przyczyny

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

Odpowiedziało 46 ze 154 zaproszonych chirurgów (30%); większość pracowała w USA (67%) lub Europie (22%), a 65% praktykowało ponad 10 lat.
Szacowali, że operowali 18 125 do 27 325 pacjentów transpłciowych i przypomnieli sobie 62, którzy żałowali operacji lub prosili o cofnięcie, czyli około 0,2–0,3%.
57% chirurgów widziało co najmniej jednego pacjenta z żalem; 45 z 62 przypadków (73%) dotyczyło operacji narządów płciowych, a 13 (21%) operacji klatki piersiowej lub piersi.
Tam, gdzie powody były znane (46 pacjentów), 42% dotyczyło zmiany tożsamości płciowej lub błędnej diagnozy, 15% odrzucenia przez rodzinę lub społeczeństwo, a 11% problemów w związku.
Autorzy podzielili prośby o cofnięcie na „prawdziwy związany z płcią” żal (42%), żal „społeczny” (37%) i żal „medyczny” (8%); 24% tych pacjentów miało powikłania po operacji.
91% chirurgów wymagałoby nowej oceny zdrowia psychicznego przed operacją cofającą, a 88% chciało, by następne wytyczne WPATH obejmowały operacje cofające.
Autorzy przyznają, że ankiety słabo nadają się do ustalania, jak coś jest powszechne, i że ich przegląd wcześniejszych badań nie był systematyczny.

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