Miriam Hadj-Moussa

Diversity of patient profile, urethral stricture, and other disease manifestations in a cohort of adult men with lichen sclerosus

Purpose Lichen sclerosus (LS) in men is poorly understood. Though uncommon, it is often severe and leads to repeated surgical interventions and deterioration in quality of life. We highlight variability in disease presentation, diagnosis, and patient factors in male LS patients evaluated at a tertiary care center. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed charts of male patients presenting to our reconstructive urology clinic with clinical or pathologic diagnosis of LS between 2004 and 2014. Relevant clinical and demographic information was abstracted and descriptive statistics calculated. Subgroup comparisons were made based on body mass index (BMI), urethral stricture, and pathologic confirmation of disease. Results We identified 94 patients with clinical diagnosis of LS. Seventy percent (70%) of patients in this cohort had BMI >30 kg/m2, and average age was 51.5 years. Lower BMI patients were more likely to suffer from urethral stricture disease compared to overweight counterparts (p=0.037). Patients presenting with stricture disease were more likely to be younger (p=0.003). Thirty percent (30%) of this cohort had a pathologic diagnosis of LS. Conclusions Urethral stricture is the most common presentation for men with LS. Many patients endure skin scarring and have numerous comorbidities. Patient profile is diverse, raising the concern that not all patients with clinical diagnosis of LS are suffering from identical disease processes. The rate of pathologic confirmation at a tertiary care institution is alarmingly low. Our findings support a role for increased focus on pathologic confirmation and further delineation of the subtype of disease based on location and clinical manifestations.

Feminizing Genital Gender-Confirmation Surgery

INTRODUCTIONnFor many patients with gender dysphoria, gender-confirmation surgery (GCS) helps align their physical characteristics with their gender identity and is a fundamental element of comprehensive treatment. This article is the 2nd in a 3-part series about the treatment of gender dysphoria. Non-operative management was covered in part 1. This section begins broadly by reviewing surgical eligibility criteria, benefits of GCS, and factors associated with regret for transgender men and women. Then, the scope narrows to focus on aspects of feminizing genital GCS, including a discussion of vaginoplasty techniques, complications, and sexual function outcomes. Part 3 features operative considerations for masculinizing genital GCS.nnnAIMnTo summarize the World Professional Association for Transgender Healths (WPATH) surgical eligibility criteria and describe how patients with gender dysphoria benefit from GCS, provide an overview of genital and non-genital feminizing gender-confirmation procedures, and review vaginoplasty techniques, preoperative considerations, complications, and outcomes.nnnMETHODSnA review of relevant literature through April 2017 was performed using PubMed.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnReview of literature related to surgical eligibility criteria for GCS, benefits of GCS, and surgical considerations for feminizing genitoplasty.nnnRESULTSnMost transgender men and women who satisfy WPATH eligibility criteria experience improved quality of life, overall happiness, and sexual function after GCS; regret is rare. Penile inversion vaginoplasty is the preferred technique for feminizing genital GCS according to most surgeons, including the authors whose surgical technique is described. Intestinal vaginoplasty is reserved for certain scenarios. After vaginoplasty most patients report overall high satisfaction with their sexual function even when complications occur, because most are minor and easily treatable.nnnCONCLUSIONnGCS alleviates gender dysphoria for appropriately selected transgender men and women. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations of feminizing genital gender-confirmation procedures were reviewed. Hadj-Moussa M, Ohl DA, Kuzon WM. Feminizing Genital Gender-Confirmation Surgery. Sex Med Rev 2018;6:457-468.

Evaluation and Treatment of Gender Dysphoria to Prepare for Gender Confirmation Surgery

BACKGROUNDnGender dysphoria is the experience of marked distress due to incongruence between genetically determined gender and experienced gender. Treatment of gender dysphoria should be individualized and multidisciplinary, involving a combination of psychotherapy, social gender transition, cross-sex hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and/or ancillary procedures and services. The goal of all treatment modalities is to alleviate distress and affirm the patients experienced gender identity. This article is the first in a 3-part series focused on the diagnostic assessment and non-operative treatment of gender dysphoria. Parts 2 and 3 focus on operative aspects of gender dysphoria treatment.nnnAIMnTo summarize the recommendations of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society (ES), as well as review published literature regarding the non-operative treatment of gender dysphoria.nnnMETHODSnA review of relevant literature through January 2017 was performed via PubMed.nnnOUTCOMESnWPATH guidelines regarding diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of gender dysphoria, specifically regimens and risks of cross-sex hormone therapy were reviewed.nnnRESULTSnFew physicians have experience with the diagnosis or treatment of gender dysphoria, although the number of patients seeking treatment has risen substantially in recent years. As a result, clinicians have turned to published recommendations from WPATH and ES, both of which promote high-quality, evidence-based care for patients with gender dysphoria. Successful treatment requires an individualized multidisciplinary approach. Non-operative treatment is both safe and effective for the majority of patients with gender dysphoria.nnnCONCLUSIONSnGuidelines from WPATH and ES, along with published literature pertaining to the diagnosis and non-operative treatment of gender dysphoria, were reviewed and summarized. Hadj-Moussa M, Ohl DA, Kuzon WM. Evaluation and Treatment of Gender Dysphoria to Prepare for Gender Confirmation Surgery. Sex Med Rev 2018;6:607-617.

Treatment of ureteral anastomotic strictures with reimplantation and survival after cystectomy and urinary diversion.

OBJECTIVEnTo examine whether long-term renal function and overall survival outcomes vary according to management approach for ureteral anastomotic stricture (UAS) after cystectomy and urinary diversion.nnnMETHODSnWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with benign UAS following cystectomy and urinary diversion using our institutional database. We compared time to stricture, renal function, rates of renal loss, and overall survival between patients undergoing ureteral reimplantation vs. those undergoing nonoperative management (nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent). A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine whether reimplantation was independently associated with overall survival.nnnRESULTSnWe identified 87 UAS in 69 patients. Reimplantation was performed in 26 patients (37.7%), and 43 patients (62.3%) were managed nonoperatively. The interval between cystectomy and stricture diagnosis was similar in the reimplanted and nonoperative groups (3.06 vs. 4.34mo, P = 0.42). The differences between baseline and follow-up creatinine levels (+0.40 vs.+0.40mg/dl, P = 0.72) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (-25.0 vs.-18.9ml/min/1.73m2, P = 0.66) were similar between groups, as were rates of renal loss (34.6% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.68); however, mortality was significantly higher in the nonoperative group. After multivariable adjustment, overall survival remained significantly higher among UAS patients who underwent reimplantation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] for risk of death = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13-0.80).nnnCONCLUSIONnReimplantation was associated with improved overall survival but not with improved long-term renal functional outcomes compared with nonoperative management. Nonrenal complications of nonoperative UAS management may play an important role in reducing longevity.

Outcomes of Ureteroscopic Stone Treatment in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury

OBJECTIVEnTo evaluate the association of clinical factors on outcomes in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) undergoing ureteroscopy. Immobility, recurrent urinary tract infection, and lower urinary tract dysfunction contribute to renal stone formation in patients with SCI. Ureteroscopy is a commonly utilized treatment modality; however, surgical complication rates and outcomes have been poorly defined. Evidence guiding safe and effective treatment of stones in this cohort remains scarce.nnnMETHODSnRecords were retrospectively reviewed for patients with SCI who underwent ureteroscopy for kidney stones from 1996 to 2014 at a single institution. Multivariate relationships were evaluated using a general estimating equation model.nnnRESULTSnForty-six patients with SCI underwent a total of 95 ureteroscopic procedures. After treatment, stone-free rate was 17% and 20% with <2-mm fragments. The complication rate was 21%. On multivariate analysis, SCI in cervical (C) levels was associated with higher risk of complications (C3: odds ratio [OR] 3.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.17-6.98; C6: OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.08-13.53). American Spinal Injury Association Scale A classification was associated with a lower probability of stone-free status (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.82). Patients averaged 2.2 procedures yet more procedures were associated with lower stone-free status (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.03-0.32). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bladder management modality were not associated with stone-free status or complications.nnnCONCLUSIONnIn patients with SCI, higher injury level and complete SCI were associated with worse stone clearance and more complications. Stone-free rate was 17%. Overall, flexible ureteroscopy is a relatively safe procedure in this population. Alternative strategies should be considered after failed ureteroscopy.

Masculinizing Genital Gender Confirmation Surgery

INTRODUCTIONnThis article is the third in a 3-part series focused on the comprehensive treatment of gender dysphoria. Multidisciplinary gender dysphoria care may involve a combination of counseling, social gender transition, hormone therapy, and gender confirmation surgery (GCS) to maximize physical characteristics congruent with a patients gender identity. Nonoperative management of gender dysphoria was covered in part 1. The focus of part 2 was feminizing GCS. In part 3, surgical considerations for masculinizing GCS are summarized, including a review of different phalloplasty techniques. This installment also includes information about adjunctive procedures, therapies, and products used by transgender men and women to express their gender identity.nnnAIMnTo provide an overview of both genital and nongenital masculinizing gender confirmation procedures. To review phalloplasty techniques, preoperative considerations, complications, and outcomes. To summarize ancillary services and procedures available to transgender patients to facilitate their gender presentation.nnnMETHODSnA review of relevant literature through May 2017 was performed via PubMed.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESnTo summarize ancillary products and services used by transgender patients and to review surgical considerations for masculinizing genitoplasty.nnnRESULTSnA variety of nonsurgical ancillary services exist for transgender patients to aid their transition. A variety of phalloplasty procedures have been developed for transgender men who seek genital GCS. Most surgeons prefer radial forearm phalloplasty, including the authors whose surgical technique is described. Each phalloplasty approach is associated with its own benefits, drawbacks, and complications.nnnCONCLUSIONnA variety of ancillary services and procedures that help transgender men and women communicate their gender identity in society is available and is an important adjunct to medical or surgical treatment of gender dysphoria. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative considerations of masculinizing genital gender confirmation procedures were reviewed. Hadj-Moussa M, Agarwal S, Ohl DA, etxa0al. Masculinizing Genital Gender Confirmation Surgery. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:141-155.

Postmortem Sperm Retrieval: Ethical, Legal, and Logistical Considerations

Introduction: Sperm retrieved following the death of a reproductively aged male can be cryopreserved and subsequently used for posthumous reproduction. Although requests for postmortem sperm retrieval (PMSR) are uncommon, the procedure has been performed with increasing frequency worldwide in recent decades. Legislation related to PMSR is highly variable, or completely nonexistent, forcing physicians and hospitals to consider a myriad of legal, ethical, and logistical questions whenever PMSR is requested. In this chapter, we summarize these considerations and review relevant sperm procurement procedures to provide a framework for hospitals to consider when developing institutional policies for PMSR.

Management of Erectile Dysfunction and Infertility in the Male Spinal Cord Injury Patient

Purpose of ReviewMen with spinal cord injury (SCI) commonly suffer from erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory dysfunction. The literature regarding the causes and treatment of these two important problems was reviewed.Recent FindingsMany of the erectile dysfunction treatments applied to able bodied individuals are also useful in the SCI population, although there are differences in the goals and results of treatment. Ejaculatory dysfunction can be treated with either penile vibratory stimulation or electroejaculation with high success rates. Pregnancies are possible, but poor quality sperm quality in male SCI patients leads to pregnancy rates lower than is observed in the able-bodied population.SummaryAlthough effective treatments are available for erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction in men with SCIs, many challenges remain in optimizing the treatment of these individuals.