Impact of surgical technique on outcome measures in chest masculinization: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Background: Among plastic surgeons, there are several conventional techniques for performing chest surgery. Research on surgical approaches has focused cis-gender patients with medical conditions, such as breast cancer or gynecomastia, but has never studied transgender populations. The aim of this study is to perform the first systematic review of gender-affirming surgery (GAS) in transgender populations and determine postoperative outcomes differences in relation to surgical technique. Methods: Two reviewers independently searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for studies published prior to 2021. Studies selected for inclusion were retrospective or prospective studies of adult transgender men undergoing GAS that utilized appropriate operative techniques and reported complications and/or patient-reported outcomes. Results: A total of 26 randomized controlled trials, including 40 distinct populations and 3055 patients, were identified. Surgical techniques compared double incision free nipple graft (DIFNG) (2053 patients [67.20%]), pedicled nipple techniques (PNT) (297 [9.72%]), and periareolar techniques (PAT) (705 [23.08%]). Pairwise analysis found the lowest complication rates associated with procedures utilizing DIFNG, followed by PNT, then PAT. Patients with PAT had significantly higher satisfaction scores than DIFNG. Conclusions: This is the first systematic review to evaluate outcomes of chest surgery techniques among the transgender population. Results indicate significantly more complications for PAT compared to DIFNG or PNT. Analysis of patient-reported outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity in reporting.