Secondary phallic prosthesis placement in transgender patients postmetoidioplasty: a case report on technique and outcome.

Introduction: Gender affirming surgery is common among transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Genital gender-affirming surgery is a form of surgery that involves transformation and reconstruction of the genitalia while maintaining urologic and sexual function. Masculinizing genital gender-affirming surgery can involve the removal of the female genital and reproductive organs and the creation of a more masculine appearance by using phalloplasty or metoidioplasty techniques. While metoidioplasty has advantages such as limited scarring and preserved genital sensation and clitoral erection, it may not always guarantee the ability to void while standing or even penetrate a sexual partner.

Aim: To describe our method of secondary phallic enhancement after metoidioplasty with a phallic prosthesis.

Methods: Our case is based on a 39-year-old transgender male who underwent metoidioplasty with vaginectomy, scrotoplasty, and urethral lengthening. However, the original surgery was complicated by extensive hematoma formation in the suprapubic area and neoscrotum, leading to a buried position of the neophallus. Subsequent surgery was performed to reduce the prepubic fat pad and penoscrotal interposition, but it too was complicated by hematoma formation and wound dehiscence. To maximize phallic elongation, the tethering urethra was removed, and perineal urethrostomy was performed but could not sufficiently alleviate the buried phallus. As a further step to improve the outcome, we proposed the implantation of a specific phallic prosthesis designed for metoidioplasty with testicular prosthesis placement. Surgery was performed as a single procedure through a penoscrotal incision and greatly enhanced genital appearance.

Results: Three months after surgery, the patient had good sensation of the phallus and was able to have satisfactory sexual activity with his partner. However, he remained dissatisfied with the amount of prepubic tissue and opted to undergo further liposuction.

Conclusion: Phallic prosthesis implantation can be a procedure to improve the condition of multioperated cases of metoidioplasty with resistant phallic burying. Reconstruction with a phallic prosthesis was performed successfully in this case. However, long-term complications and functional outcomes, such as the ability to void while standing or penetrate a sexual partner, remain uncertain. Further experience is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of using a phallic prosthesis as a secondary procedure in patients undergoing metoidioplasty.