IJ TRANSGENDER - London Congress - Abstract - Obtaining Rigidity in ‘Total Phalloplasty’: Experience with Dynaflex Prosthesis in 9 Patients and CXM Prosthesis in 6 Patients

Editors:
Friedemann Pfäfflin,
Ulm University, Germany

Walter O. Bockting,
University of Minnesota, USA

Eli Coleman,
University of Minnesota, USA

Richard Ekins,
University of Ulster at Coleraine, UK

Dave King,
University of Liverpool, UK

Managing Editor:
Noelle N Gray,
University of Minnesota, USA

Editorial Assistant:
Erin Pellett,
University of Minnesota, USA

Editorial Board

Authors

Contents
Historic Paper s

Info
Authors´Guidelines

Published by

ISSN 1434-4599

XVI Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association Symposium
17 - 21 August 1999, London

Reflections on "Transsexualism and Sex Reassignment" 1969 -1999

Obtaining Rigidity in ‘Total Phalloplasty’: Experience with Dynaflex Prosthesis in 9 Patients and CXM Prosthesis in 6 Patients

Hoebeke P. *, Monstrey S.°

*Dpt Pediatric Urology and Urogenital Reconstruction and ° Dpt Plastic Surgery University Hospital Gent Belgium

Introduction
Material and Methods
Results
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION: The combination of a neourethra and an erection prosthesis in one neophallus in the female to male transsexual remains a challenge. The outcome reported in the literature is disappointing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between August 1996 and October 1998, 14 patients underwent implantation surgery. The Dynaflex prosthesis was used in 9 patients, the CXM prosthesis in 6. In the Dynaflex group the prosthesis is covered by a Dacron prosthesis in order to fix the prosthesis against the pubic bone. In the CXM group only the proximal part of the prosthesis is covered with Dacron to fix the prosthesis to the pubic bone.

RESULTS: In the Dynaflex group (n=9), prosthesis implantation was uneventful in 7 patients. In 2 patients there was a technical failure due to breakage of the stiffener. In these 2 patients the prosthesis was replaced. In 1 of these patients the prosthesis had to be removed due to infection. At this time 8 patients have a Dynaflex prosthesis inserted. Seven of these are sexually active, with a satisfactory use of the prosthesis both to themselves and their partners. In the CXM group (n=6) prosthesis implantation was uneventful in 5 patients. In 1 patient infection and partial necrosis of the neophallus occurred. Only 3 of these patients are sexually active with high satisfaction for themselves and their partner.

CONCLUSION: Good results are reported with the implantation of the Dynaflex prosthesis in the total phalloplasty patient. Disadvantages of this prosthesis include deactivation during intercourse and the risk of breakage of the stiffener. With the CXM prosthesis these disadvantages could be avoided.