Talk:Phalloplasty/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Anon 70.23.252.147

Anon User:70.23.252.147 added this to the article, not my field bu it may be able to inegrate into the article; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki alf (talk • contribs) 23:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above comment used to contain copy-pasted text from this edit.WanderingWanda (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The above is irrelevant. 116.15.64.221 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

also referred to in the literature as addadictomy

I am skeptical of this, what literature? I am thinking this should be fact-tagged. I could understand this being a popular slang, but has it actually been adopted into medical literature? 174.115.134.69 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This term should not be used. It isn't a medical term, and it isn't even a widely used slang term.

There is also an error in describing phalloplasty as another term for penis enlargement. The extension of an existing organ is entirely different to creating a fake penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adult stem cell research

The artice should perhaps mention the potential impact of stem cell research on the modern practice of phalloplasty. It is possible to imagine that new techniques in regenerative organ growth could have useful applications for those who seek penis enlargement. [1] ADM (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The "No Touch" article would fit well in the "Techniques Explained" section, after being condensed. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Are you seeking support or someone's time to do this? Millionmice (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Two simple reasons. First, the "receiving article" (this one) is of markedly poorer quality (skim referencing, for instance). I have placed critical tags on the incoming article, but it far exceeds this one in fundamentals of medical and scientific writing. Placing good quality content into a bad article context obscures the quality of the entering text, and artificially and misleadingly gives a better impression of the quality of the merged article. Even if I believed these were the two articles best to be merged, I would urge improvement of the receiving article—so its general content quality was on par with the entering article. Second, I believe this is an apples and oranges merger of subjects, unless the receiving article is so poorly written as to mask a compliemntarity I do not see. The surgical aim of the article being brought here is to reintroduce functionality; if it belongs merged anywhere, it is with another class of procedures, and not phalloplasty with its stated aims. The aims and content (and therefore audiences) of these two surgical procedures appear to be distinct. The stated desire of some editors to see this incoming article subsumed into a larger article and topic is reasonable, even laudable. This simply does not appear to be the correct place to insert it, based solely on the matter of comparable, related medical content. Before doing this, please entertain broad expert opinion to see if urologists and genitourinary surgeons (i) see this procedure labeled as a phalloplasty procedure in the literatures that they consult, and (ii) would they themselves wish to see it appear in this context. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just read the first 20 or so results of a search for "penile prosthesis Phalloplasty ncbi". Phalloplasty appears to be an umbrella term which includes penile prosthesis implantation, which is itself an umbrella term which includes "No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation". I do not agree the prosthesis article to be merged with phalloplasty is of good quality, as it includes specifics that are not universally accepted, is predominantly written by one person, and reads like an advertisement. I agree this page needs improvement. Millionmice (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Support merge. The No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation is long, but has excessive and unnecessary detail, being mostly a 'how to' on the surgery (WP:NOTHOWTO); the topic is a subset of the "Techniques explained" section, and so, once edited to a reasonable size, would fit well there. I also note that the Phalloplasty page itself has greatly improved since the objections voiced on 1st June 2014, so I don't believe that that line of argument still holds. Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Klbrain, you can ask WP:Med to weigh in on the idea merging the articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that WP:NOTHOWTO states, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out a relevant section of WP:NOTHOWTO; I accept that the text is not in the imperative mood. It is interesting to note that the general article Asepsis#Methods is much shorter than No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation. On a more positive note, much of the content in No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation is relevant to Phalloplasty in general, and so the target will benefit from this additional content. This page is also sufficiently short that it can accommodate the additional material.Klbrain (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that this has been going on for 3 years, and that there have been no obections over the last 2.5months, I'll complete this oldest merge proposal on the English Wikipedia. Klbrain (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phalloplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect information

These are not grafts, they are flaps. Grafts do not have their own blood supplies, grafts would only be used to cover the donor site or possibly make urethras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitsofwaste (talk • contribs) 01:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4c goals

Expand the citations under "Explanation of Techniques" Brandon James Ross (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Not clear whether these additions will significantly improve the page; please add goals if not. Health policy (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There appear to be more than four "types" of phalloplasty surgery. I would like to remove that specification. Brandon James Ross (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

For peer reviewing the edits made to this article, in regards to the Revising Wikipedia General Instructions, I looked at the the edits that 4c made to this article. The edits align with the given goals of expanding upon and providing details for the ‘types’ of phalloplasty surgery. In doing so, they have improved this Wikipedia article while providing a neutral point of view and edited in a manner consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style. The source used for this information was a peer reviewed secondary source article. To continue improvement, it would help to see further elaboration upon this subject to make a substantial edit to the page. Niamh.ogrady (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Jdinger123 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Arcmelodia (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Caption info standardization

1. Looking for the best way to standardize which information is included in phallo image caption information. Do other medical articles show a sample format for which information to include? 98.156.134.219 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)PK

2. Editing conversation alleges advertising is a risk if surgeon work is cited. How to balance with credit to surgeon work. Are there additional Fair Use images to add of other methods? 98.156.134.219 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)PK

3. Commons Image includes 'nonbinary' with emphasis. I see a high risk of misgendering a nonbinary person given photo of a penis (man, trans male etc), without non-binary emphasis. Original non-binary descriptor tag seems important to retain. Other thoughts? 98.156.134.219 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)PK

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Foley1115, Do.shelly, Brandon James Ross, Neilshieh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DLPHAN, CSaeteurn, Future UCSF PharmD, SntnPhung, Cmueller6267.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Common complications section

Just leaving a note for now that the common complications section has been removed, due to WP:MEDASSESS and WP:SYNTH issues. The sole citation that was in that section was a case report, about a pulmonary fat embolism causing death after a penis enlargement surgery. There was no link in the case report or its associated literature review that established the risk of a similar embolism for phalloplasty.

As such I'm going to to a search now for sources higher on the MEDASSESS pyramid, detailing any common phalloplasty complications, so that we can re-write that section properly. I'll add the sources to a list here before thinking about prose that we can include. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, got a list of sources so far, which will be grouped by tiers of the MEDASSESS pyramid. Only a brief sentence on each source so far, I will come back to this later with more in-depth notes starting from the highest tier sources, but I also want to get this list out so others can start to do the same and so we don't duplicate effort. I've excluded case reports and below from this list, though I'd recommend that where possible we stick to the highest tiers.

Clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews:

WPATH SoC 8, published 2022, chapter 13 (PDF pages 130-137) has some content with citations on common phalloplasty complications
A Systematic Review of Metoidioplasty and Radial Forearm Flap Phalloplasty in Female-to-male Transgender Genital Reconstruction: Is the “Ideal” Neophallus an Achievable Goal?, published 2016, systematic review on metoidioplasty and one type of phalloplasty
The Rise of the Neophallus: A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthetic Outcomes and Complications in Gender-Affirming Surgery, published 2019, lists the most common types of phalloplasty, and common aggregate complications and rates.
Management of Vaginoplasty and Phalloplasty Complications, published 2019, very useful article, has about five pages of useful content on common complications following phalloplasty
Urethral Complications After Transgender Phalloplasty: Strategies to Treat Them and Minimize Their Occurrence, published 2017, literature review of a single type of phalloplasty (Radial forearm free flap). Focuses on urethral complications only.
Prosthetic Placement After Phalloplasty, published 2019, review on implantation of prosthesis as part of phalloplasty, has some information throughout on some complications that arise from this
Phalloplasty: A Review of Techniques and Outcomes, published 2016, review of common types of phalloplasty. As the review was conducted in 2016, the content may be somewhat outdated. Will need to compare this against more recent reviews to see if rates are still correct. While it contains a list of complications, it doesn't elaborate much upon them.
Techniques and considerations of prosthetic surgery after phalloplasty in the transgender male, published 2019, another review on prosthetic implantation as part of phalloplasty. Unlike other reviews it also includes information on testicular prosthetics and their complications so may be useful here.

Cohort Studies:

Urethrographic Evaluation of Anatomic Findings and Complications after Perineal Masculinization and Phalloplasty in Transgender Patients, published 2020, focuses primarily on urethral complications following phalloplasty
Quality of life and hormones after sex reassignment surgery, published 2015, focuses primarily on the quality of life aspects post surgery, has scant content on phalloplasty so likely not useful
Surgical Satisfaction, Quality of Life, and Their Association After Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Follow-up Study, published 2017, no useful content as this focuses on satisfaction rates and not on surgical outcomes
Reproductive wish in transsexual men, published 2011, no useful content as this focuses on fertility desires for trans men.
Penile Reconstruction: Is the Radial Forearm Flap Really the Standard Technique?, published 2009, analysis of 287 surgeries carried out by one team in Belgium. Has some content on the more common complications, but overall usefulness is low.
Functional Outcomes and Urological Complications after Genital Gender Affirming Surgery with Urethral Lengthening in Transgender Men, published 2020, cohort study of a single surgical centre in Amsterdam. Can't access the full text of this one, so can't assess further.
Outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis insertion in 247 patients completing female to male gender reassignment surgery, published 2017, cohort study of a single surgical centre. Focuses on complications arising from inflation cylinders.

Unknown:

Neourethra Creation in Gender Phalloplasty: Differences in Techniques and Staging, published 2021, unable to access the full text of this one and can't classify it from the abstract alone. May have useful content on urethral complications for three types of phalloplasty, and will likely need a request at WP:REREQ to gain access.

Going to stop now, cause I'm pretty tired. I'll try and make some notes on the systematic reviews tomorrow and over the weekend, to see what sort of content we can build out of this array of sources. This list is non-exhaustive, so if you know of or find any that I've missed feel free to add them. If you're looking at this list for content, I'd recommend sticking with the newer sources where possible, especially if we are going to put in relative rates of occurrence of complications, surgical techniques can evolve greatly over just a few years and the older reviews can quickly become outdated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)