Barriers to Completing Preoperative Hair Removal for Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty

• Published in: Archives of sexual behavior Vol. 53; no. 5; pp. 2003 - 2010
• Main Authors: Mankowski, Peter, Mukherjee, Smita, Kumar, Sahil, O’Dwyer, Cormac, Jung, Hoyoung, Wassersug, Richard, Genoway, Krista, Kavanagh, Alexander
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.05.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Cosmetics industry; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Gender reassignment surgery; Hair; Hair Removal - methods; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Original Paper; Pain management; Patient Satisfaction; Penis; Penis - surgery; Preoperative Care - methods; Psychology; Public Health; Sex Reassignment Surgery - methods; Sexual Behavior; Social Sciences; Vagina; Vagina - surgery; Young Adult; Transgender; Electrolysis; Gender-affirming surgery; Laser hair removal; Penile inversion vaginoplasty
• ISSN: 0004-0002; 1573-2800
• DOI: 10.1007/s10508-023-02783-4

Penile inversion vaginoplasty (PIV) is a gender-affirming surgical procedure where the skin of the penis and scrotum is reconstructed into the neovaginal lining. To prevent hair-bearing skin from becoming incorporated into the neovaginal canal, transgender patients are encouraged to undergo hair removal of their external genitalia. The goal of this preoperative hair removal is to minimize the risk of potential hair-related complications after vaginoplasty. To better support patients seeking preoperative hair removal and identify current treatment barriers, we surveyed patients about their progress and satisfaction with hair removal. A cross-sectional survey was constructed to assess patient experiences with hair removal in advance of PIV. Sixty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 46 participated (68.7%). Both laser hair removal (LHR) and electrolysis were used. Although all patients had completed some preoperative hair removal at the time of survey (average of 14 sessions), the cohort completed only two-thirds of their total expected hair clearance. Multiple peri-procedural pain management therapies were employed, but overall satisfaction with pain management was low (57.4 ± 5.0 out of 100). LHR was associated with significantly lower procedural pain compared to electrolysis ( p  < .001). The average global satisfaction with the hair removal process was 57.9 ± 5.7 and incidents of mistreatment were associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall satisfaction ( p  = .02). Most patients felt that hair removal was important prior to surgery. Overall, LHR and electrolysis were both utilized as effective preoperative hair removal modalities; however, LHR has better pain tolerability than electrolysis.