Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2017; 44(01): 48-52
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2017.44.1.48
Original Article

Is Rectosigmoid Vaginoplasty Still Useful?

Seok-Kwun Kim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong-A University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Ji-Woen Park
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong-A University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Kwang-Ryeol Lim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong-A University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
,
Keun-Cheol Lee
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong-A University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
› Author AffiliationsThis study was supported by research funds from Dong-A University
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background The ideal vaginoplasty must be successful functionally as well as have a natural appearance, and also must retain its functionality and appearance over the long term. Conventional vaginoplasty techniques have functional limitations and are associated with recurrent complications, but rectosigmoid vaginoplasty is known to have a high satisfaction rate due to its functional similarity with the vagina. We conducted the present study to assess the usability of rectosigmoid vaginoplasty over the course of long-term follow-up.

Methods From March 1992 to February 2014, 84 patients were treated with rectosigmoid vaginoplasty; 44 had gender identity disorder, 29 had vaginal agenesis, 8 had female pseudohermaphroditism, and 3 had gynecologic malignancies after radical pelvic surgery. This retrospective study was based on a review of the patients' records, clinical examinations, complications, and questionnaires about appearance, function, and sexual intercourse.

Results All patients who underwent rectosigmoid vaginoplasty were discharged within 2 weeks without surgical flap loss. The early complications were partial flap necrosis, difficulty in defecation, mucous hypersecretion, and postoperative ileus. The late complications were vaginal introitus contracture, vaginal prolapse, and difficulty in urination. The mean length and diameter of the neovagina 3.4 years after rectosigmoid vaginoplasty were 13.2 cm and 3.8 cm, respectively. On questionnaires about satisfaction, 70% of patients reported excellent satisfaction, 11% good, 12% fair, and 7% poor.

Conclusions Rectosigmoid vaginoplasty is useful, safe, and well-accepted operative method with good functional and cosmetic results, such as natural lubrication and adequate vaginal length and width obtained without requiring the use of a dilator.

Keywords

Gender identity - Vagina - Surgical flap


Publication History

Received: 06 September 2016

Accepted: 20 October 2016

Article published online:
20 April 2022

© 2017. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Frank RT. The formation of an artificial vagina without operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1938; 35: 1053-1055
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kim SK, Jung YH. Reconstruction of the female genitalia. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 23: 804-817
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Fotopoulou C, Neumann U, Klapp C. et al. Long-term effects of neovaginal reconstruction with sigmoid loop technique on sexual function and self image in patients with gynecologic malignancies: results of a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol 2008; 111: 400-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baldwin JF. XIV. The formation of an artificial vagina by intestinal trransplantation. Ann Surg 1904; 40: 398-403
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davies MC, Creighton SM. Vaginoplasty. Curr Opin Urol 2007; 17: 415-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hensle TW, Shabsigh A, Shabsigh R. et al. Sexual function following bowel vaginoplasty. J Urol 2006; 175: 2283-2286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kwun Kim S, Hoon Park J, Cheol Lee K. et al. Long-term results in patients after rectosigmoid vaginoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 143-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Khen-Dunlop N, Lortat-Jacob S, Thibaud E. et al. Rokitansky syndrome: clinical experience and results of sigmoid vaginoplasty in 23 young girls. J Urol 2007; 177: 1107-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kapoor R, Sharma DK, Singh KJ. et al. Sigmoid vaginoplasty: long-term results. Urology 2006; 67: 1212-1215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 O'Connor JL, DeMarco RT, Pope JCt. et al. Bowel vaginoplasty in children: a retrospective review. J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39: 1205-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Karateke A, Haliloglu B, Parlak O. et al. Intestinal vaginoplasty: seven years' experience of a tertiary center. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2312-2315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA. et al. Determinants of vaginal length. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1846-1850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Barnhart KT, Izquierdo A, Pretorius ES. et al. Baseline dimensions of the human vagina. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1618-1622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wylie KR, Eardley I. Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1449-1455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fang RH, Chen TJ, Chen TH. Anatomic study of vaginal width in male-to-female transsexual surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 511-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kim C, Campbell B, Ferrer F. Robotic sigmoid vaginoplasty: a novel technique. Urology 2008; 72: 847-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar