The Effects of Perioperative Gender-affirming Hormone Therapy on Facial Feminization Surgery Adverse Events, Facial Features Addressed, and Esthetic Satisfaction: A Multimodal Analysis

Objective:Facial feminization surgery (FFS) treats gender dysphoria in transfeminine patients by addressing the facial bony and soft tissue components. Individuals seeking FFS may be taking gender-affirming hormone replacement therapy [gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT)]. This study aims to better characterize the GAHT's impact on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, surgical planning, and outcomes.Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature were carried out to assess the effect of perioperative GAHT continuation on VTE. Cochrane Q and I2 statistics measured study heterogeneity with the following meta-regression exploring these results. Simultaneously, a retrospective review of the senior author's FFS cohort was conducted to investigate GAHT duration's impact on FFS revision rate, complication incidence, and facial structures operated on.Results:Eleven articles were included: 602 patients stopped GAHT, of whom 3 VTEs were recorded (0.49%). This is compared with one episode among the 925 who continued GAHT perioperatively (0.11%). Study heterogeneity was low (0%), but limited VTE sample size precluded meta-analytic conclusions. Gender-affirming hormone therapy duration does not impact the incidence of all-cause complications (P = 0.478), wound infection (P = 0.283), hematoma (P = 0.283), or VTE (P = 1). The only procedures significantly less associated with higher GAHT were tracheal shaving (P = 0.002) and mandibuloplasty (P = 0.003). Finally, the FFS revision rate was not associated with GAHT duration (P = 0.06).Conclusion:There is a paucity of data to assess the safety or harm of continuing GAHT in the FFS perioperative period. Thus, a shared provider-patient decision-making process examining the risks and benefits of GAHT perioperative continuation is warranted. As patients seeking gender-affirming care are diverse, a "one-protocol-fits-all" is not appropriate.