Hubbry Logo
VaginectomyVaginectomyMain
Open search
Vaginectomy
Community hub
Vaginectomy
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Vaginectomy
Vaginectomy
Vaginectomy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Vaginectomy
ICD-9-CM70.4
Diagram of female genitalia

Vaginectomy is a surgery to remove all or part of the vagina. It is one form of treatment for individuals with vaginal cancer or rectal cancer that is used to remove tissue with cancerous cells.[1] It can also be used in gender-affirming surgery. Some people born with a vagina who identify as trans men or as nonbinary may choose vaginectomy in conjunction with other surgeries to make the clitoris more penis-like (metoidioplasty), construct of a full-size penis (phalloplasty), or create a relatively smooth, featureless genital area (genital nullification).[2][3][4][5][6]

If the uterus and ovaries are to remain intact, vaginectomy will leave a canal and opening suitable for draining menstrual discharge. Otherwise, as in genital nullification, a hysterectomy must be performed to avoid the danger of retaining menstrual discharge within the body.[7] In the latter case, thorough removal of vaginal lining is necessary to avoid continued secretion within the body.[8]

In addition to vaginectomy in humans, there have been instances of vaginectomy in other animals to treat vaginal cancer.[9]

Uses

[edit]

Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia

[edit]

Total or partial vaginectomy along with other procedures like laser vaporization can be used in the treatment of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. These procedures remove the cancerous tissue and provide tissue samples to help identify underlying/invasive cancer while maintaining structure and function of the vagina. This surgery along with radiation therapy used to be the optimal treatment for high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. However, high rates of recurrence and severe side effects such as vaginal shortening, bleeding and sepsis have narrowed its uses. A partial upper vaginectomy is still the treatment of choice for certain cases of vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia as it has success rates ranging from 69 to 88%.[10]

Rectal cancer

[edit]

A vaginectomy is often necessary to remove all cancerous tissue associated with rectal cancer. Depending on the extent of rectal cancer, a total or partial vaginectomy may be indicated to improve long-term survival. Following the surgery and removal of rectal tumors, vaginal and rectal reconstructive surgery can improve healing and may help with self-image and sexual function.[11]

Genital gender-affirming surgery

[edit]

Although there has not been a consensus on the standard treatment for penis construction in transgender men, a vaginectomy is a vital step in many of the various techniques. Depending on the reconstructive surgeon and which method is used, the basic outline of the procedure involves taking skin from an area of the body like the forearm or abdomen followed by glans sculpture, vaginectomy, urethral anastomosis, scrotoplasty and finished with a penile prosthesis implantation. The ideal outcome of this procedure, as described by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), is to provide an aesthetically appealing penis that enables sexual intercourse and sensitivity. Complications do arise from this procedure which may include tissue death, urethral complications, and infection.[12]

Radial Forearm Free Flap (RAFFF) is one of the techniques considered for total phallic construction.[12] Developed and performed in 1984, RAFFF consists of three stages and a complete vaginectomy is the second stage of RAFFF. The preferred technique is ablation vaginectomy with simultaneous scrotoplasty, which will close the labia majora along the midline.[13]

Recurrent gynecologic malignancies

[edit]

An anterior pelvic exenteration with total vaginectomy (AETV) is a procedure that removes the urinary system (kidneys, ureters, bladder, urethra) as well as the gynecologic system (ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina) and is used as treatment of recurrent gynecologic cancers. A total pelvic exenteration can also be used as treatment which involves the removal of the rectum in addition to the urinary and gynecologic systems. The decision between the two procedures depends on extent of the cancer. Potential benefits of an AETV over a total pelvic exenteration include reduced risk of intestinal injury.[14]

Reversal of vaginoplasty

[edit]

Neovaginectomy has been performed to remove the neovagina following vaginoplasty, for instance in transgender women who experience neovaginal complications or those who choose to detransition.[15]

Contraindications

[edit]

The safety of vaginectomy can depend on individual medical conditions and the subsequent risks they pose. For example, for people with diabetes mellitus, potential contraindications for vaginectomy include wound-healing difficulty; for people who prefer to not undergo hormone therapy, potential contraindications include gonad removal (oophorectomy or orchiectomy).[16]

Risks/complications

[edit]

Many people who undergo vaginectomy do so for sexual health and intimacy. However, risks of vaginectomy include post-operative sensory issues that range from lack of sensation to excessive sensation, such as hypersensitivity or even pain.[16] To address this, skin grafting is often done with vaginectomy to allow recovery of sexual function.[17]

Other risks may involve consequences of the procedure itself. For example, possible injuries include rectal injury (due to the proximity of the structures), development of a fistula (an abnormal connection between two body parts), or, for people who have phalloplasty done in conjunction with vaginectomy, irritation or even erosion of the skin of the phallus. Some of these locations may be suture sites; irritation of these sites may increase likelihood of infection.[18]

There are pre- and post-operative steps that can be taken to minimize complications from vaginectomy. For example, other procedures that are often performed in conjunction with vaginectomy, such as metoidioplasty and phallourethroplasty, can be performed in two stages to increase the likelihood of a favorable cosmetic outcome.[19] Also, waiting for a period of time after completing a procedure, usually a minimum of 4 months, ensures that the person undergoing the surgery is clear of infections or risk thereof. Thus, procedures towards the end of the gender-affirming process, such as penile prosthesis placement, are usually done separately.[19]

For people with vaginal cancer, vaginectomy can be done partially, instead of radically, depending on the individual person's need as determined by the tumor's size, location, and stage. For example, some people had simple hysterectomy (a procedure that removes a uterus) and then discovered cervical cancer. At this point, upper vaginectomy - along with other suggested procedures such as lymphadenectomy (a procedure that removes lymph nodes) - may be suggested to people who would prefer to keep ovarian function intact.[20] This is an option depending on the invasiveness and severity of the disease and is specifically for individuals with stage I cancer in the upper vagina.[21]

Techniques

[edit]

Vaginectomy procedures are described by the amount of vaginal tissue removed from an individual which is dependent on the reason for surgery.

Removal of cancerous tissue

[edit]

For vaginectomy as a treatment to cancer, tissue is removed in response to the extent of the cancer.[7] A partial vaginectomy removes only the outer most layers of tissue and is performed if the abnormal cells are only found at the skin level. For example, individuals with rectal cancer that has spread to vaginal tissue may undergo a partial vaginectomy in which the posterior wall of the vagina near the anus is removed. A surgeon will make an incision on the abdomen in order to reach the vagina for removal. The operation to remove vaginal tissue will typically happen with at the same time as a colostomy and a abdominoperineal resection in which a portion of the colon is rediverted into a colostomy bag and the rectum is removed. A partial vaginectomy leaves much of the muscles in the vagina intact and can be followed by a vaginal reconstruction surgery.[22]

If more invasive cancer is found, a more complete vaginectomy is performed to remove all cancerous tumors and cells.[23]

Gender-affirming surgery

[edit]

In vaginectomy for gender-affirming surgeries, the tissue from the vaginal wall is removed while outer labial flaps are sometimes left in place for other reconstructive surgeries.[24] The procedure gives people who were assigned female sex at birth but do not identify as female, such as transgender men and transmasculine or otherwise nonbinary individuals, genitalia that aids in reducing gender dysphoria and affirming their gender identity through their physical appearance.[3][19] Counseling is often provided to people considering gender-affirming surgeries prior to procedures in order to limit regret later down the line.[25] In the context of gender-affirming surgery, procedures are categorized as either colpocleisis or total vaginectomy.[26]

Colpocleisis only removes a layer of epithelium or the outer most tissue in the vaginal canal. The walls of the vaginal canal are then sutured shut, but a small channel and the perineum area between the vagina and anus is typically left open to allow for discharge to be emitted from the body. A colpoclesis procedure is sometimes preceded by an oophorectomy and or a hysterectomy to remove the ovaries and uterus which reduces risks of complications from leaving these structures intact and reduces the amount of vaginal discharge. If the ovaries and uterus are left intact there are greater levels of vaginal discharge remain that can contribute to further gender dysphoria in individuals.[26]

Total vaginectomy is becoming the more common form of vaginectomy in gender-affirming surgeries. It involves removal of the full thickness of vaginal wall tissue and can be approached vaginally, as in a transvaginal or transperineal vaginectomy, or abdominally through the area near the stomach, as in an abdominal vaginectomy. In addition to a greater degree of tissue removal, total vaginectomy also involves a more complete closure of the space in the vaginal canal. In comparison to colpocleisis, it is more often preceded by separate oophorectomy and hysterectomy procedures and proceeded by a separate gender reconstruction surgery such as to create a neophallus.[6] Total vaginectomy surgery is sometimes performed using robotic assistance which allows for increased speed and precision for a procedure with less blood loss and a quicker recovery time.[26]

Recovery

[edit]

Individuals should expect to experience some pain in the first week after the operation. The average hospital stay after operation was a week and all individuals are discharged with a catheter, which is removed after 2–3 weeks.[8] At discharge, individuals learn how to take care of the incisions and must limit their physical activity for the initial 2–3 weeks. Swelling of the abdominal area or abdominal pain are signs of complications during recovery. Some common complications that occur are urethral fistulas and strictures in individuals who undergo vaginectomy and phallic reconstruction for gender-affirming surgeries. This is due to poor blood supply and improper width of the new urethra.[27]

History

[edit]

Vaginal surgeries have been around throughout medical history. Even before the invention of modern surgical techniques such as anesthesia and sterile tools, there have been many reports of vaginal surgery to treat problems such as prolapse, vaginal fistula, and poor bladder control. For example, the first documented vaginal hysterectomy was performed in 1521 during the Italian Renaissance.[28] Surgical techniques and medical knowledge developed slowly over time until the invention of anesthesia and antisepsis allowed for the age of modern surgery in the mid-nineteenth century. Since then, many techniques and instruments were developed specifically for vaginal surgery like the standardization of sutures in 1937 which greatly improved survival rates by lowering risk of infection.[29] Noble Sproat Heaney developed the "Heaney Stitch" in 1940 to standardize the technique for vaginal hysterectomy. The first documented case of radical vaginal surgery was in February 2003 where a person underwent a radical hysterectomy with vaginectomy and reconstruction.[30]

Other animals

[edit]

Vaginectomies are also performed outside of the human species. Similarly to humans, animals may also undergo vaginectomies to treat cancer of the vagina. Domesticated animals and pets such as dogs, cats, and horses are more likely to receive a vaginectomy because of its complicated procedure.[9]

Dogs

[edit]

Total and partial vaginectomies are not commonly done on dogs as they are complex and are not considered first line therapy however, if other procedures do not work a vaginectomy can be performed on a dog. The most common reasons for a dog to get a vaginectomy include cancer and chronic infection of the vagina. Tumors on the vagina and vulva of the dog accounts for 2.5%-3% of cancers affecting dogs and vaginectomies are one of the treatments to remove and cure the dog.[31] Possible complications from the surgery include loss of bladder control, swelling, and improper skin healing.[9] However, loss of bladder control was fixed spontaneously within 60 days of the operation and the dogs survived at least 100 days with no disease.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Vaginectomy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A vaginectomy is a surgical procedure involving the partial or total removal of the vaginal canal and, in radical cases, adjacent supporting tissues. It is most commonly indicated for the treatment of vaginal cancer, high-grade vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia, or other pelvic malignancies such as cervical or rectal cancer extending to the vagina, where excision aims to achieve oncologic clearance while assessing resectability based on tumor stage and invasion depth. Partial vaginectomy targets superficial or proximal lesions, preserving distal vaginal function, whereas total or radical variants address more extensive disease but often result in vaginal shortening, infertility, and altered sexual function. The procedure is also utilized in sex reassignment surgeries for individuals with male , where it obliterates the to eliminate the canal, frequently combined with , , or to construct male-appearing genitalia.30182-6/fulltext) In these elective contexts, techniques may involve transperineal or abdominal approaches to minimize visible scarring, though empirical data indicate elevated risks of urinary tract complications, , and functional impairments without guaranteed resolution of underlying psychological distress. Common perioperative risks across indications include hemorrhage, , bladder or rectal injury, and perineal wound breakdown, with complication rates exceeding 80% in some series involving multidisciplinary pelvic resections. Postoperative management often requires reconstruction via grafts or flaps to mitigate or , alongside long-term surveillance for recurrence in oncologic cases.

Definition and Procedure Overview

Surgical Definition and Types

Vaginectomy is a surgical procedure involving the excision of part or all of the vaginal canal, the muscular tube connecting the to the in biological females. This operation is typically performed under general and may involve open, laparoscopic, or robotic-assisted approaches, depending on the extent and indication. The procedure aims to resect diseased tissue while preserving as much function as possible, though it often necessitates reconstruction or diversion of urinary and fecal pathways in extensive cases. Vaginectomies are classified primarily by the anatomical extent of resection. A partial vaginectomy removes only a segment of the vaginal wall, such as the upper (proximal) portion near the or the lower (distal) portion adjacent to the introitus, preserving the remainder of the canal. This type is indicated for localized lesions, minimizing disruption to sexual and urinary function. In contrast, a total vaginectomy entails complete removal of the l canal from the introitus to the vaginal apex, often requiring neovaginal reconstruction using grafts or flaps to restore integrity. Radical vaginectomy extends beyond the to include adjacent structures like parametrial tissues, paravaginal tissues, and sometimes pelvic nodes, typically for invasive malignancies with risk of local spread. Additional subclassifications may arise based on concomitant procedures or anatomical focus, such as vestibule-vaginectomy (incorporating removal of the vaginal vestibule) or vulvo-vaginectomy (extending to vulvar tissues), though these are less standardized and often tailored to specific pathologies. Operative morbidity varies by type, with radical procedures carrying higher risks of hemorrhage, infection, and formation due to broader .

Anatomical Considerations

The constitutes a fibromuscular canal extending posterosuperiorly from the external vaginal orifice in the to the of the , measuring approximately 7.5 cm along the anterior wall and 9 cm along the posterior wall. It lies anterior to the and posterior to the and , with lateral relations to the ureters and muscles. These spatial relationships necessitate precise dissection during vaginectomy to avoid inadvertent injury to adjacent organs, particularly the posteriorly and anteriorly, which share thin fascial separations. Structurally, the vagina features rugose walls formed by an inner mucosal layer of non-keratinized , a middle muscular layer with circular and longitudinal fibers, and an outer blending with surrounding . The upper , including the , integrates with the cardinal and uterosacral ligaments for support, forming a cardinal-uterosacral complex approximately 2-3 cm in length that stabilizes the fornices. In total vaginectomy, removal extends to this vault level, requiring mobilization while preserving or ligating ligamentous attachments to maintain integrity. Arterial supply derives primarily from the (a branch of the ) and contributions from the proximally, with anastomoses to the distally, forming a rich submucosal . Venous drainage parallels via a vaginal into the internal iliac veins. Surgical excision demands meticulous due to this vascular density, particularly during circumferential mobilization of the vaginal walls. Innervation involves autonomic fibers from the uterovaginal plexus—sympathetic via the hypogastric plexus and parasympathetic via (S2-S4)—predominating in the proximal four-fifths, while the distal fifth receives somatic sensory input from the . This distribution implies potential sensory preservation in partial procedures but complete denervation in total vaginectomy, influencing postoperative sensation and function. Lymphatic drainage varies by segment: the superior vagina drains to external and internal iliac nodes, the middle to internal iliac nodes, and the inferior to superficial inguinal nodes. In oncologic vaginectomy, this segmental pattern guides lymph node dissection to ensure adequate clearance, particularly for upper vaginal lesions involving iliac chains.

Indications

Oncological Indications

Vaginectomy is primarily indicated for the surgical management of , a rare malignancy accounting for approximately 0.6% of gynecologic cancers, where resection offers curative potential in early stages not amenable to or alone. For stage I and II or of the vagina, partial or total vaginectomy allows removal of the tumor with adequate margins while preserving surrounding structures when feasible. In cases of superficial invasion less than 0.5 cm into the vaginal wall, a simple partial vaginectomy suffices, minimizing morbidity compared to more radical approaches. For vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN), a pre-invasive often linked to human papillomavirus, proximal partial vaginectomy serves as an effective therapeutic option, particularly for upper vaginal involvement post-hysterectomy, with studies reporting low recurrence rates and enabling histopathological confirmation to rule out occult . This procedure identifies invasive cancer in up to 12% of VaIN cases, underscoring its diagnostic value alongside treatment. In recurrent or persistent high-grade VaIN refractory to topical therapies like 5-fluorouracil, upper vaginectomy provides durable control, though long-term surveillance with cytology and remains essential due to multifocal disease risk. Beyond primary vaginal neoplasms, vaginectomy features in en bloc resections for adjacent gynecologic cancers with vaginal extension, such as early-stage (FIGO I-II) disease following radical or for vaginal recurrences of cervical or endometrial in post- patients. For advanced or recurrent pelvic cancers involving the vagina, it may form part of , though this radical procedure is reserved for select cases due to high morbidity, with 5-year survival rates varying from 20-60% depending on margins and nodal status. In non-gynecologic contexts, such as rectal cancer with vaginal , partial or total vaginectomy ensures oncologic clearance, often combined with colorectal resection. Surgical candidacy prioritizes tumor localization via imaging and , with considered for borderline resectable lesions to optimize outcomes.

Non-Oncological Medical Indications

Vaginectomy serves as a component of obliterative procedures for severe (POP) in women who do not anticipate future vaginal intercourse and for whom reconstructive options may be unsuitable due to comorbidities or frailty. In these cases, partial or total vaginectomy facilitates vaginal closure or narrowing, often alongside or pelvic herniorrhaphy, to restore anatomic support and alleviate symptoms such as pelvic pressure, , or bowel dysfunction. This approach prioritizes durability over vaginal patency, with anatomic success rates exceeding 90% in select cohorts. Such indications are typically reserved for postmenopausal or elderly patients with advanced (e.g., stage III-IV), where less invasive therapies like pessaries have failed and risks (e.g., mesh erosion or recurrence) outweigh benefits. Vaginectomy with herniorrhaphy in high-risk populations demonstrates low perioperative morbidity, including complication rates under 10% for or , and short hospital stays averaging 2-3 days. Long-term follow-up indicates sustained correction without significant impact on urinary or defecatory function in most cases. Other benign gynecologic conditions, such as fistulas or extensive benign lesions (e.g., large Bartholin cysts unresponsive to drainage), may rarely warrant partial vaginectomy to excise diseased tissue and prevent recurrence, though evidence is limited to case reports and not standardized. These applications emphasize preservation of continence and sexual alternatives when feasible, with preoperative counseling on irreversible loss of vaginal capacity.

Elective Indications in Gender Dysphoria

Vaginectomy serves as an elective intervention for individuals with gender dysphoria assigned female at birth who identify as male, aiming to resolve distress stemming from the presence of vaginal anatomy. This procedure addresses dysphoria by excising vaginal mucosa and closing the canal, often integrated with phalloplasty or metoidioplasty to enable neophallic reconstruction and reduce issues like vaginal discharge. It is pursued after initial treatments such as testosterone therapy fail to fully mitigate genital-related incongruence, with empirical data indicating improved psychological well-being post-surgery in qualifying cases. Eligibility criteria, aligned with guidelines from bodies like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), emphasize persistent documented over at least six months by professionals experienced in the condition. Candidates must exhibit capacity for fully , understanding irreversible effects including infertility, and typically undergo at least 12 months of to evaluate its influence on unless medically contraindicated. (18 years) is required, alongside one referral letter from a qualified provider confirming readiness. Not all individuals with seek vaginectomy; it is indicated selectively when genital incongruence persists despite conservative measures, with studies reporting procedure rates among males ranging from 20-50% in surgical cohorts. Long-term follow-up data support its role in alleviation, with regret rates below 1% in gender-affirming genital surgeries, though methodological limitations in older studies and potential underreporting warrant caution in interpreting universal efficacy. Comorbid may influence candidacy, as preoperative assessment identifies risks exacerbating postoperative symptoms.

Contraindications and Preoperative Assessment

Absolute and Relative Contraindications

Absolute contraindications to vaginectomy include active pelvic or untreated local , which pose an unacceptably high risk of disseminating intraoperatively, and uncorrectable or severe decompensated cardiopulmonary disease precluding safe general . In oncologic settings involving radical procedures such as , distant metastases, , or unresectable involvement of structures like the pelvic sidewall or sciatic represent absolute contraindications, as they preclude curative intent or render futile. Relative contraindications encompass conditions that elevate complication risks but may be mitigated with optimization, such as prior pelvic radiation inducing and adhesions, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus impairing , morbid complicating access and increasing rates, and active exacerbating vascular compromise. In elective contexts like gender-affirming surgery for individuals with , relative contraindications include unresolved severe psychiatric comorbidities or lack of preoperative mental health clearance, which protocols require to ensure and postoperative adherence.
TypeExamplesKey Rationale
AbsoluteActive pelvic infection; uncorrectable ; distant metastases in Immediate life-threatening risks or inability to achieve therapeutic goal
RelativePrior radiation; ; ; untreated psychiatric instability (elective cases)Increased perioperative morbidity manageable with preoperative intervention

Patient Evaluation Protocols

Patient evaluation for vaginectomy begins with a detailed to identify comorbidities such as , , , status, and prior surgical interventions, which influence perioperative risk. A comprehensive follows, focusing on pelvic , including vaginal vault assessment and evaluation for adhesions or anatomical variants that may affect surgical access. For oncological indications, preoperative staging incorporates imaging such as MRI or CT scans, confirmation of , and multidisciplinary tumor board review to determine resectability. Laboratory investigations typically include , profile, renal and hepatic function tests, and electrolytes, tailored to patient age and comorbidities to detect or . In cases of elective vaginectomy for , protocols emphasize psychological assessment by a qualified to evaluate the persistence, intensity, and stability of gender incongruence, alongside screening for co-occurring mental health conditions like depression or anxiety that could impact decision-making. This evaluation assesses treatment history, including duration (often requiring at least 12 months), social transition progress, and capacity for postoperative adherence, with documentation via letters of support confirming readiness. Empirical data indicate that untreated psychiatric comorbidities correlate with higher rates in gender-affirming surgeries, underscoring the need for stabilization prior to proceeding. must explicitly address irreversible sterility, sexual function changes, and potential neovagina complications if part of staging. Preoperative optimization involves risk stratification using tools like the ASA Physical Status classification, with interventions such as at least 4-8 weeks prior to reduce issues, nutritional screening for , and anemia correction via iron supplementation if hemoglobin is below 10 g/dL. For all indications, examination under may be employed if outpatient pelvic evaluation is inadequate, though recent analyses question routine internal exams for gender-affirming procedures due to limited added value in low-risk cases. Contraindications, including active or uncontrolled , are screened via these protocols to minimize adverse outcomes.

Surgical Techniques

Partial versus Total Vaginectomy

Partial vaginectomy refers to the surgical excision of a discrete portion of the and underlying tissue, often limited to the upper vaginal segment or a focal pathological area, while preserving the majority of the vaginal . This approach is typically employed for localized conditions such as vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VAIN) confined to the upper vagina post-hysterectomy or benign neoplasms unresponsive to conservative . In contrast, total vaginectomy involves the complete resection of the vaginal , from the introitus to the apex, eliminating all vaginal tissue and necessitating management of the resulting defect, such as through or reconstruction. Total procedures are indicated for diffuse or refractory high-grade lesions, like extensive VAIN III, where partial excision risks incomplete clearance and recurrence. The primary distinction lies in the anatomical extent and functional consequences: partial vaginectomy aims to retain sufficient vaginal length and integrity for potential preservation of and pelvic support, whereas total vaginectomy irrevocably abolishes vaginal patency, rendering penetrative vaginal intercourse impossible without reconstructive intervention. European Society of Gynaecological Oncology guidelines recommend reserving total vaginectomy for exceptional cases due to its profound impact on , prioritizing partial or alternative therapies like radiotherapy for most vaginal malignancies to avoid such functional loss. Surgically, both may utilize open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches, but total vaginectomy demands more extensive mobilization of pelvic structures, increasing operative time and potential for complications like formation, though minimally invasive techniques mitigate blood loss and recovery duration comparably. Oncologic outcomes favor adequacy of margins over procedure type; partial vaginectomy suffices for unifocal with reported recurrence rates below 10% in select VAIN cohorts, while total vaginectomy achieves near-complete clearance in multifocal cases but at the cost of higher psychological morbidity from altered . In non-oncologic contexts, such as elective removal in treatments for individuals seeking male genital reconstruction, total vaginectomy predominates to facilitate staging, with studies confirming its feasibility and low complication rates in experienced centers, though long-term data on regret or satisfaction remain limited to small series. underscores that procedure selection hinges on disease distribution and priorities, with partial options preserving more native anatomy when oncologically viable.

Operative Approaches

Vaginectomy can be performed via several operative approaches, selected based on the required extent of resection, anatomical considerations, comorbidities, and proficiency. These include transvaginal, laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open abdominal methods, with minimally invasive techniques generally preferred when feasible to reduce recovery time and morbidity. The transvaginal approach provides direct access through the vaginal canal using specialized instruments, making it suitable for partial vaginectomies targeting superficial or lower vaginal lesions, such as early-stage tumors less than 0.5 cm deep into . This method avoids abdominal incisions but is limited for extensive upper vaginal or total resections due to restricted visualization and access. Laparoscopic vaginectomy involves multiple small abdominal incisions for inserting a laparoscope and tools, enabling mobilization and removal of the upper often in conjunction with . It offers improved visualization over open surgery with reduced postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays compared to . Robotic-assisted vaginectomy enhances laparoscopic precision through articulated instruments, tremor filtration, and three-dimensional imaging, particularly beneficial for complex pelvic dissections near critical structures like the and . In a 2024 comparative study of 128 patients with vaginal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, robotic-assisted procedures demonstrated lower estimated blood loss (41.6 ± 40.3 mL versus 68.1 ± 56.4 mL), fewer intraoperative complications (6.3% versus 24.7%), and shorter recovery metrics including flatus passage time, catheterization duration, and hospitalization compared to conventional , though at higher cost. Combined robotic-vaginal approaches integrate initial circumferential vaginal incision and distal transvaginally with robotic abdominal access for proximal , ureterolysis, vascular control, and en bloc specimen removal, as detailed in a 2023 of primary vaginal where a 10-step protocol achieved clear margins without conversion. This hybrid method facilitates total vaginectomy with concurrent and assessment in early-stage disease. Open abdominal vaginectomy, via midline or transverse laparotomy, is employed for radical resections involving deep invasion, adhesions, or when minimally invasive options are contraindicated, providing wide exposure for lymphadenectomy and reconstruction but associated with greater blood loss, longer operative times, and extended recovery.

Context-Specific Modifications

In oncological indications, vaginectomy techniques are adapted to prioritize tumor clearance and staging, often involving radical excision with margins of at least 1-2 cm beyond visible disease to minimize local recurrence rates, which can exceed 20% without adequate resection. This may necessitate en bloc removal with adjacent structures such as the uterus, bladder, or rectum in advanced cases (e.g., FIGO stage II-IV vaginal cancer), potentially extending to pelvic exenteration for invasive tumors infiltrating beyond the vaginal wall. Lymphadenectomy, either pelvic or inguinofemoral, is routinely incorporated for nodal assessment, as up to 30% of patients with vaginal squamous cell carcinoma present with regional metastasis. Reconstruction, if pursued, employs myocutaneous flaps (e.g., gracilis or rectus abdominis) to restore pelvic floor integrity and prevent fistulas, though primary closure suffices in partial resections; cosmesis and sexual function are secondary to oncologic outcomes. For non-oncological medical indications, such as refractory vaginal fistulas or severe unresponsive to conservative measures, modifications emphasize preservation of surrounding anatomy and function. Procedures are typically partial vaginectomies via transvaginal or laparoscopic approaches, focusing on excision of diseased mucosa while maintaining vaginal depth and continence; for instance, in vesicovaginal fistulas post-radiation, layered closure with omental interposition reduces recurrence to under 10%. Adjunctive measures like Martius flap grafts from labial fat pads are used for reinforcement in high-risk cases, avoiding radicality to minimize or urinary issues. These adaptations align with lower morbidity profiles, with complication rates around 15-20% compared to oncologic series. In elective cases for , particularly in males undergoing genital reconstruction, vaginectomy is modified for complete mucosal ablation and perineal obliteration to enable standing micturition and neophallus positioning, often as stage 1 of or protocols. Total vaginectomy via minimally invasive routes (laparoscopic or robotic) is preferred, concurrently with total and salpingo-oophorectomy in over 80% of cases, achieving perineal approximation without vaginal remnant to avert long-term issues like mucosal or cyclic . Techniques include high ligation of the vaginal fornices and meticulous to facilitate subsequent urethral lengthening, with reported surgical site rates below 5% in experienced centers; unlike oncologic procedures, margins prioritize functional closure over wide excision, and sensation preservation is not a focus given the tissue removal.

Risks and Complications

Perioperative Risks

Intraoperative hemorrhage represents a primary perioperative risk in vaginectomy due to the extensive vascularization of the vaginal wall, with median blood loss reported as 100-300 mL depending on surgical approach, occasionally necessitating transfusion in up to 5% of gender-affirming cases via transperineal methods. Urinary tract injuries, including to the (up to 5.3%), (1.8%), and (0.6%), are frequent intraoperative complications in vaginal vaginectomy approaches, occurring in approximately 7.6-10.6% of procedures, while robotic-assisted techniques show lower rates at 0.7%. Rectal injury is a rarer but serious intraoperative risk, documented in about 1% of vaginal cases, potentially requiring immediate repair. Anesthesia-related complications, such as cardiovascular events or respiratory issues, align with those of comparable pelvic surgeries, with overall 30-day mortality rates under 0.1% for elective procedures. Immediate postoperative risks include pelvic hematoma formation (observed in 2.5% of transperineal gender-affirming vaginectomies) and early infections like Clostridium difficile colitis, though overall perioperative complication rates remain low at 5-10% in specialized series without routine visceral injuries or fistulae. Approach-specific factors influence risk profiles, with vaginal methods associated with higher intraoperative organ and loss compared to minimally invasive alternatives, underscoring the importance of experience and selection.

Short-Term Postoperative Complications

Short-term postoperative complications following vaginectomy, defined as those occurring within 30 days of surgery, primarily encompass hemorrhage, surgical site infections, urinary tract infections, , and , with overall rates varying by surgical approach and concomitant procedures but generally remaining low in uncomplicated cases. In gender-affirming vaginectomy series, 30-day complication rates have been reported as low, with no major intraoperative visceral injuries or excessive readmissions in institutional cohorts using robotic-assisted techniques. However, when performed concurrently with , vaginectomy is associated with elevated rates (7.1% versus 0% for alone), though other metrics such as reoperation or transfusion requirements show no significant differences. Hemorrhage manifests as or formation, often managed with packing or transfusion; estimated blood loss averages 200-300 mL in laparoscopic or robotic approaches, with transfusion needs in under 5% of cases across mixed indications. Surgical site infections, including superficial infections or pelvic abscesses, occur in approximately 5-10% of patients, typically responsive to antibiotics without reoperation, though rates may rise with open techniques or . Urinary complications, such as retention or tract infections, are common due to proximity to the , affecting up to 20% in gender-affirming cases involving urethral lengthening, but resolve with catheterization in most instances. In broader cohorts, total short-term complication rates reach 5.8% for isolated vaginectomy, lower than combined exenterative procedures (up to 30% major events like or ), underscoring the influence of procedural extent on risk. National database analyses of gender-affirming surgeries indicate unadjusted 30-day complication rates of 37.1% for vaginectomy-inclusive procedures versus 20.3% without, encompassing minor events like wound disruptions; adjustment for confounders attenuates this difference, suggesting baseline patient factors contribute significantly. Risk mitigation involves prophylactic antibiotics, meticulous , and early mobilization, with readmission rates under 10% in optimized settings.

Long-Term Complications

Long-term complications following vaginectomy are relatively uncommon in contemporary series, particularly when performed via minimally invasive techniques, though they encompass urinary, sexual, and wound-related sequelae that persist beyond the immediate postoperative period. In oncologic contexts, such as treatment for vaginal or cervical cancer recurrence, studies report no increased incidence of chronic bladder voiding dysfunction or other enduring urinary issues attributable to the procedure itself, even in patients with prior pelvic irradiation or advanced age. However, vaginal absence or shortening can lead to permanent alterations in sexual function, including dyspareunia or inability to engage in penetrative intercourse, and rare instances of fecal or urinary incontinence have been noted in broader pelvic exenteration cases involving vaginectomy. In gender-affirming vaginectomy for men, often combined with or urethral lengthening as part of bottom surgery, long-term complication rates remain low, with cohort studies documenting minimal persistent adverse events such as chronic strictures, fistulas, or infections requiring reintervention. One series of patients reported no major long-term morbidity, attributing safety to transperineal or robotic-assisted approaches that minimize tissue trauma. Nonetheless, when vaginectomy accompanies neourethral construction, delayed stricture formation or urethrocutaneous fistulas may necessitate surgical revision in up to 3-5% of cases over extended follow-up, though overall quality-of-life impacts are generally favorable in satisfied patients. Across both indications, perineal or syndromes can emerge months to years postoperatively, particularly in patients with comorbidities like or prior radiation, with healing delays observed in up to 12% of elective cases. or at the surgical site represents additional rare but documented risks in radical procedures. Empirical data underscore that patient selection, nerve-sparing techniques, and multidisciplinary follow-up mitigate these outcomes, yet prospective long-term registries are limited, potentially underreporting subtle functional deficits.

Recovery and Postoperative Care

Immediate Recovery Phase

Following vaginectomy, patients are typically monitored in a setting for 2 to 5 days to assess hemodynamic stability, manage pain, and detect early complications such as or . Hospital stays may extend to a week if the procedure is part of more extensive surgery, like or . Pain control in the immediate postoperative period employs multimodal analgesia, including intravenous or oral (such as or in select cases), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and acetaminophen to minimize opioid requirements and facilitate early recovery. Prophylactic antibiotics are administered perioperatively to reduce surgical site risk, with continuation for 24 to 48 hours postoperatively as needed. A is routinely inserted during surgery and retained for 24 to 48 hours, or up to 7 days in cases involving extensive , to monitor urine output, prevent —a common issue after pelvic procedures—and allow rest. , incision sites, and drainage (if present) are closely observed for signs of hemorrhage, dehiscence, or formation, with or re-exploration performed if arises. Early ambulation is promoted within 24 hours to mitigate venous and , though strenuous activity is restricted. Bowel function is supported with stool softeners and laxatives, as pelvic surgery often delays . Discharge planning includes instructions for wound hygiene, such as gentle cleaning and avoiding submersion in water until healed.

Long-Term Rehabilitation

Long-term rehabilitation following vaginectomy emphasizes multidisciplinary management to address persistent functional deficits, including support, continence, sexual function, and psychological adjustment, with outcomes varying by surgical context and reconstruction status. In oncologic cases, pelvic reconstruction using pedicled flaps such as vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) or gracilis enhances long-term integrity and reduces risk, contributing to improved through better and mobility. Sexual rehabilitation, pursued in approximately 28% of reconstructed patients, yields successful intercourse in 75% of those cases, though preoperative sexual activity strongly predicts postoperative viability, with overall rates ranging from 14% to 84.6%. When vaginectomy accompanies neovagina creation via peritoneal or techniques in primary treatment, long-term physical recovery includes monitoring neo-vaginal dimensions and lubrication; peritoneal neovaginas may shorten to an average 8.8 cm by 6 months, necessitating mold use for stabilization, while sigmoid variants maintain length (12.5 cm) but produce excess requiring adaptation. , assessed via Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) scores ≥24, proves satisfactory in all patients by 6 months, with sigmoid patients resuming intercourse earlier (3.5 months versus 5.5 months for peritoneal). Disease-free survival extends to 36 months in such cohorts, underscoring reconstruction's role in psychological rehabilitation for younger patients. In non-reconstructed cases, such as certain male procedures or radical resections, rehabilitation prioritizes perineal wound maturation and continence training, with full healing typically achieved by 6 weeks, though nerve regeneration for sensation may extend to 6-12 months when combined with . management, if lymph nodes were excised, involves compression and to mitigate chronic swelling, alongside surveillance for fistulas or . , adapted from general gynecologic protocols, focuses on strengthening residual musculature to prevent and support bowel/ function, often commencing 6-8 weeks postoperatively with sessions lasting 8-12 weeks. Empirical on or detransition-specific rehab remains sparse, with institutional biases in reporting potentially understating long-term dissatisfaction in elective contexts.

Clinical Outcomes

Outcomes in Cancer Treatment

Vaginectomy, often performed as part of for early-stage primary (FIGO stages I and II), has demonstrated superior survival outcomes compared to local tumor excision, with significantly prolonged overall survival in retrospective analyses of over 1,000 patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database spanning 2004–2015. In post-hysterectomy patients with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) of the vaginal vault derived from , vaginectomy yields higher recurrence-free survival rates, achieving 94.5% at follow-up compared to 69.0% with in a of 87 cases. For recurrent confined to the , minimally invasive laparoscopic or robotic vaginectomy in carefully selected patients reports 5-year overall survival rates of 70.5% and of 59.4%, with complete resection margins in most cases and lower recurrence compared to more extensive (32% vs. 68% in a series of 45 women). In early-stage treated with laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical vaginectomy plus , disease-free survival reaches 88.9% at 12 months, with 100% overall survival in small cohorts, positioning it as a feasible alternative to open approaches for localized disease. Recurrence rates following vaginectomy for vary by stage, with 24% observed in stage I disease across multimodal treatments including surgery, though radical resection reduces local failure compared to conservative excision; advanced stages (III–IV) show higher rates of 53–83%. Compared to —which incorporates vaginectomy but extends to organ removal—isolated vaginectomy preserves better quality of life by avoiding urinary or bowel diversion, while enabling subsequent salvage therapies like radiotherapy upon recurrence. Operative mortality remains low (under 5%), though perioperative morbidity, including wound complications and , necessitates patient selection based on comorbidities and tumor margins. Long-term data underscore vaginectomy's role in improving disease-free in persistent or minimally invasive vaginal malignancies post-radiotherapy.

Outcomes in Elective Procedures

Elective vaginectomy, primarily performed in transmasculine gender-affirming surgery alongside procedures such as or , aims to excise vaginal mucosa to facilitate neophallic construction, reduce infection risk, and align anatomy with . In a cohort of 40 transmasculine patients undergoing transperineal vaginectomy with complete mucosal excision, no cases of urethral fistulae, mucoceles, or visceral injuries occurred, with a median follow-up of 7.7 months; complications were limited to two blood transfusions, one pelvic , and one instance of Clostridium difficile . Operative times stabilized at 2-2.5 hours after initial experience, indicating procedural efficiency. When integrated into phalloplasty, vaginectomy contributes to high overall complication rates of 76.5%, largely driven by urethral complications including fistulae (34.1%) and strictures (25.4%), which may necessitate revisions. Incomplete excision techniques elevate risks of vaginal remnant recurrence (5-8%), vagino-cutaneous fistulae, or persistent cyclical bleeding, though fulguration and excision methods show comparable safety profiles. Concurrent does not significantly increase 30-day complication rates compared to staged approaches. Patient-reported satisfaction is elevated, with systematic reviews of phalloplasty-inclusive surgeries showing most transmasculine individuals satisfied or very satisfied with outcomes, including enhanced perception (82%) and quality-of-life improvements such as better and sexual well-being. Functional metrics include tactile sensation in 93.9% and standing voiding in 92.2% of patients, though satisfaction with voiding function is lower at 59%. These findings derive from clinic-based cohorts, which may underrepresent dissatisfaction due to selection effects and loss to follow-up exceeding 50% in some series.

Controversies and Empirical Critiques

Debates on Efficacy in

Vaginectomy, as part of female-to-male gender-affirming genital surgery, is performed to eliminate the vagina, which proponents argue alleviates by conforming external to male presentation and reducing associated psychological distress from perceived incongruence. Patient-reported satisfaction rates in small cohort studies often exceed 80%, with reductions in self-reported dysphoria scores observed postoperatively, attributed to decreased and menstrual remnants. However, these findings derive primarily from uncontrolled, retrospective designs with short follow-up periods averaging 1-2 years, lacking randomized comparisons to non-surgical interventions or waitlist controls. Systematic reviews of gender-affirming surgeries, including genital procedures, consistently rate the evidence for reduction as very low quality due to high risk of bias, small sample sizes (often n<50 for FtM genital cohorts), and reliance on subjective measures without validated, long-term endpoints. One review of 14 surgical studies (n=763 adults) found inconsistent short-term improvements in depression (significant in 3 studies, no change in 5) and no significant anxiety reductions at 0-6 months, with potential benefits emerging only after longer follow-up but confounded by concurrent and psychotherapy. Critics, including meta-analyses, argue that observed outcomes may reflect regression to the mean, expectation effects, or in affirming clinics, rather than causal efficacy, as no high-quality trials demonstrate surgery-specific resolution independent of these factors. Debates intensify over persistent comorbidities: while some studies report quality-of-life gains, mental health utilization remains elevated post-surgery compared to general populations, suggesting incomplete dysphoria mitigation or unaddressed underlying issues like autism spectrum traits or trauma, which are overrepresented in gender dysphoria cohorts. Academic sources favoring affirmation often emphasize self-reported data from motivated samples, yet overlook high attrition rates (up to 50%) and absence of sham controls, echoing broader critiques of systemic biases in gender medicine research where dissenting studies face publication hurdles. For vaginectomy specifically, evidence gaps persist, with FtM genital outcomes underrepresented relative to male-to-female procedures, and no prospective trials isolating its dysphoria-relieving effects from or components.

Regret Rates and Detransition Evidence

Reported regret rates following vaginectomy as part of gender-affirming genital for transmasculine individuals are low in published studies, typically under 1%. A 2021 systematic review of 27 studies involving 7,928 patients found a prevalence of for transmasculine surgeries of less than 1%, with overall gender-affirmation regret at 0.9%; this included procedures like , which often incorporates vaginectomy to eliminate vaginal tissue. Similarly, analysis of outcomes indicated a rate of 0.5%, lower than the 1.3% observed for transfeminine . These rates are derived primarily from clinic follow-up data, where patients self-report satisfaction shortly after , with mean follow-up periods often under 5 years. However, methodological shortcomings undermine confidence in these low figures. Many studies suffer from high loss to follow-up—exceeding 30% and up to 81% in some cohorts—potentially excluding detransitioners who disengage from affirming clinics. Follow-up durations are frequently too brief to capture delayed , which has a median onset of 8 years post-surgery, and regret assessments often rely on unvalidated questionnaires rather than comprehensive, population-based tracking. Clinic-sourced data from environments ideologically committed to affirmation may also introduce , as patients expressing doubt could face social pressures to affirm positive outcomes or avoid reporting dissatisfaction. Critics, including analyses from evidence-based organizations, argue these flaws render claims of "very low regret" unreliable, with true rates likely higher though unquantified in rigorous, long-term studies. Evidence on specifically after vaginectomy-inclusive procedures like or remains limited and indirect, as bottom surgeries occur in only about 6% of individuals and are less studied than top surgeries. Detransition rates post-genital surgery are not accurately known due to similar tracking gaps, but general detransition timelines average 3-6 years, overlapping with common post-surgical complications that could precipitate reconsideration. Anecdotal reports and specialized reversal services document cases of FTM detransitioners seeking vaginal reconstruction after or with vaginectomy, citing regret over loss of natal anatomy, , or unresolved ; however, no large-scale epidemiological data quantifies this subgroup. Broader surveys of detransitioners indicate that a subset regrets irreversible genital interventions, but affirmative literature often conflates detransition with temporary identity exploration rather than surgical reversal, potentially minimizing its prevalence.

Broader Ethical and Causal Concerns

Ethical concerns surrounding vaginectomy in non-oncologic contexts, particularly for , center on the principle of non-maleficence, as the procedure entails removal of healthy, functional tissue with uncertain long-term psychological benefits. The Cass Review, commissioned by , concluded that the evidence base for gender-affirming surgeries, including genital procedures like vaginectomy, is of low quality, with short-term follow-up periods failing to demonstrate sustained resolution of or improvements in outcomes beyond effects. This raises questions about whether such interventions prioritize ideological affirmation over empirical harm reduction, especially given documented complications like urinary fistulas, , and occurring in up to 25% of cases when combined with . Informed consent processes for vaginectomy are critiqued for inadequately addressing unknowns, such as fertility loss, , and the potential for , which systematic reviews estimate at 1% but may be underreported due to loss to follow-up and clinic-specific biases. A scoping review of ethical literature identifies tensions in minors' decisional capacity for irreversible genital surgeries, with 26 studies opposing such procedures due to developmental immaturity and external influences, contrasted against affirmative views but undermined by methodological flaws in supportive research. Broader issues arise from the informed consent model's pitfalls, including incomplete disclosure of alternatives like exploratory , which the Cass Review endorses for addressing comorbidities such as autism or trauma prevalent in up to 70% of gender clinic referrals. Causally, vaginectomy treats a subjective mismatch rather than verifiable physiological , potentially overlooking etiological factors like social influences or underlying conditions that resolve without intervention in 80-90% of adolescent-onset cases historically. Affirmative paradigms assume a fixed, innate incongruence amenable to surgical correction, yet causal analyses reveal weak links to biological markers, with often correlating more strongly with environmental and psychological stressors than immutable traits. This symptomatic approach risks iatrogenic harm by bypassing causal investigation, as evidenced by narratives attributing persistence to unexamined comorbidities rather than affirmed identity, underscoring the need for rigorous, unbiased longitudinal studies over assumption-driven care.

Historical Development

Early Surgical Applications

The earliest documented surgical applications of vaginectomy emerged in the late as part of radical procedures for , where partial removal of the vaginal cuff was integrated into to achieve oncologic clearance. In 1898, Ernst Wertheim introduced the radical abdominal , which involved en bloc resection of the , parametrial tissues, pelvic lymph nodes, and the upper third to half of the vagina to address parametrial and vaginal extension of invasive cervical carcinoma. This partial vaginectomy aimed to reduce local recurrence by excising potential microscopic disease in the vaginal margin, though early operative mortality exceeded 20% due to hemorrhage, , and urinary fistulas in the pre-antibiotic era. Wertheim reported on over 500 cases by 1911, with 5-year survival rates around 40-50% for operable stages, establishing vaginectomy as a cornerstone of curative intent despite technical challenges like ureteral injury.30049-5/abstract) By the early 20th century, partial vaginectomy extended to primary vaginal cancers, particularly squamous cell carcinomas confined to the upper or lower , often combined with or for staging and control. For upper vaginal lesions, surgeons adapted Wertheim-like approaches, incorporating radical hysterectomy with extended vaginal resection, while lower lesions prompted local excision with margins of 1-2 cm to preserve function where possible. These applications were limited to early-stage disease (e.g., FIGO stage I), as advanced cases yielded poor outcomes without adjunctive , which was rudimentary until the . Operative morbidity remained high, with complication rates of 30-50% including and , reflecting the absence of modern imaging and antibiotics. A pivotal advancement in total vaginectomy occurred in 1948 with Alexander Brunschwig's introduction of pelvic exenteration for recurrent or advanced pelvic malignancies, such as post-radiation cervical cancer failures invading the vagina. This en bloc resection encompassed the bladder or rectum, uterus, entire vagina, and pelvic nodes, marking the first systematic total vaginectomy for salvage therapy despite a perioperative mortality of up to 23% in initial series from hemorrhage and sepsis. Brunschwig's procedure, performed on over 100 patients by the 1950s, achieved 5-year survival in 15-25% of selected cases, prioritizing radicality over quality of life and influencing subsequent protocols for vaginal and rectal cancers with vaginal involvement. Early critiques highlighted its palliative limitations and psychological toll, yet it validated vaginectomy's role in eradicating central disease recurrences unattainable by less invasive means.

Evolution in Modern Practice

In the latter half of the , vaginectomy transitioned from primarily open surgical approaches, often as part of radical first described by Brunschwig in 1948 for advanced gynecologic malignancies, to more targeted procedures incorporating laparoscopic techniques. This shift, beginning in the , enabled partial or total vaginectomy with reduced blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of postoperative complications compared to traditional open methods, particularly for early-stage s or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). For instance, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy combined with vaginectomy was reported as feasible for primary vaginal cancer by the early 2000s, preserving pelvic structures while achieving oncologic clearance. The advent of robotic-assisted surgery in the 2010s marked a further evolution, offering three-dimensional visualization and articulated instruments that improved precision in dissecting vaginal tissues and adjacent structures like the and . Studies from 2023 and 2024 demonstrate robotic-vaginal hybrid approaches for en bloc total vaginectomy and in clinically early-stage disease, with operative times averaging 180-240 minutes and minimal conversion to open . These minimally invasive methods have expanded applicability to patients previously deemed high-risk due to comorbidities, achieving comparable oncologic outcomes—such as 5-year survival rates exceeding 80% for stage I —with decreased morbidity. In parallel, for individuals with born female undergoing genital reconstruction, vaginectomy or colpectomy (removal of vaginal mucosa) evolved from rudimentary excisions in mid-20th-century procedures to integrated steps in or by the 1980s, aimed at eliminating vaginal tissue to mitigate and secretions, though long-term data on technique standardization remains limited to retrospective cohorts. Contemporary practice emphasizes multidisciplinary integration, combining vaginectomy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation for advanced cases to shrink tumors prior to , thereby facilitating organ-preserving variants like partial vaginectomy. Advances in hemostatic agents and energy devices have further minimized intraoperative bleeding, with complication rates for robotic procedures reported below 10% in select series. However, adoption varies by institution, with open techniques persisting in complex revisions or when reconstruction is not pursued, underscoring ongoing refinements driven by empirical outcomes rather than uniform protocols.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8773321/
  2. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/vaginal-cancer/treating/surgery.html
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6801277/
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17309001/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32645370/
  6. https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.16513
  7. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vaginal-reconstruction-surgery
  8. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/vaginectomy
  9. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22862-vaginectomy
  10. https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types/vaginal/treatment/surgery
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9139564/
  12. https://www.cancercenter.com/cancer-types/vaginal-cancer/treatments/vaginectomy
  13. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1949237-overview
  14. https://teachmeanatomy.info/pelvis/female-reproductive-tract/vagina/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9543804/
  16. https://nyulangone.org/conditions/vaginal-cancer/treatments/surgery-for-vaginal-cancer
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002937805004916
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3680043/
  19. https://obgyn.mhmedical.com/Content.aspx?bookid=1577&sectionid=95457161
  20. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancer-types/vaginal-cancer/vaginal-cancer-treatment.html
  21. https://www.moffitt.org/cancers/vaginal-cancer/treatment/surgery/
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19932419/
  23. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13670-023-00382-8
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8739283/
  25. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(03)00671-9/abstract
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/vaginectomy
  27. https://auanews.net/issues/articles/2021/june-2021/vaginal-remnants-after-transmasculine-gender-affirmation-surgery
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205556/
  29. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
  30. https://depts.washington.edu/tgnbhealthprogram/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/WPATH-criteria-for-surgery.pdf
  31. https://www.transhealthcare.org/resources/wpath-standards-of-care-requirements-for-gender-affirming-surgery/
  32. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808707
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961024002381
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11219149/
  36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554482/
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8699210/
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521693413000217
  39. https://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/600_699/0615.html
  40. http://mcgs.bcbsfl.com/MCG?mcgId=02-55900-01&pv=false
  41. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/gynecologic-surgery-overview-of-preoperative-evaluation-and-preparation
  42. https://www.esgo.org/media/2023/06/Pocket-Guidelines_Vaginal-cancer.pdf
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9577970/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9630738/
  45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544426/
  46. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2018/09/perioperative-pathways-enhanced-recovery-after-surgery
  47. https://advances.massgeneral.org/obgyn/journal.aspx?id=2523
  48. https://www.gynecologiconcology-online.net/article/S0090-8258%2815%2930188-8/fulltext
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4742481/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10026974/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10788024/
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1189196/full
  53. https://www.oncolink.org/cancers/gynecologic/vaginal-cancer/surgical-procedures-surgical-staging-for-vaginal-cancer
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10527783/
  55. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2025/05001/concurrent_vaginectomy_at_time_of_gender_affirming.164.aspx
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11278962/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11500588/
  58. https://cegh.net/article/S2213-3984%2824%2900223-9/fulltext
  59. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000003213.13
  60. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(22)02335-3/fulltext
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9746687/
  62. https://e-century.us/files/ijcem/10/8/ijcem0059018.pdf
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29188324/
  64. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1245/s10434-020-09207-w
  65. https://journals.lww.com/ogopen/fulltext/2024/09000/temporal_trends_and_outcomes_of_gender_affirming.2.aspx
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6615743/
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22841659/
  68. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000002032.08
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609519307209
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29188324
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16005499/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4348594/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4156001/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3774134/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6382220/
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4247753/
  77. https://cranects.com/vaginectomy/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784723001551
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8714364/
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32780160/
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32199295/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048891X24027889
  83. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27327154/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8921584/
  85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33063258/
  86. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40481497/
  87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.03.002
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40570379/
  89. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1097/01.JU.0001009432.48553.4f.10
  90. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2822%2902335-3/pdf
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9255096/
  92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.01.183
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609521003027
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214623724000267
  95. https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/gender-dysphoria-report-appendix.pdf
  96. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2333525
  97. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01605-w
  98. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19010080
  99. https://www.theplasticsfella.com/regret-gender-reassignment/
  100. https://segm.org/regret-detransition-rate-unknown
  101. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/11000/letter_to_the_editor__regret_after.29.aspx
  102. https://detransitionsurgery.com/female-to-male-surgery-reversal/
  103. https://segm.org/Final-Cass-Report-2024-NHS-Response-Summary
  104. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-025-01216-2
  105. https://segm.org/informed-consent-affirmative-care
  106. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221
  107. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/270723-overview
  108. https://obgyn.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=1577&sectionid=95457161
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048891X24022047
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4865614/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10204127/
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352578916300923
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090825812003228
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090825807009869
  115. https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-024-02882-x
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.