Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 14, 2026
Procurement and Perfusion-Decellularization of Porcine Vascularized Flaps in a Customized Perfusion Bioreactor
Published on: August 1, 2022
Pedicled Flaps Versus Free Radial Forearm Flap for Phalloplasty in Female to Male Gender-Confirming Surgery: A
Thendo Netshiongolwe1, Sebastian Mitchell2, Senthooran Kathiravelupillai3
1From the Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Background:
The field of gender-affirming surgery is rapidly evolving, with plastic surgery units worldwide increasingly offering these services. Phalloplasty is a critical component of female-to-male (FTM) transition, providing significant psychological and functional benefits. Although robust comparative trials are scarce, expert consensus favors the radial forearm free flap (RFF) when feasible. This systematic review directly compares outcomes of pedicle anterolateral flap (pALT) and the RFF in FTM gender-affirming surgery.
Methods:
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and EBSCO for eligible studies. Two independent reviewers screened and selected studies, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Flap survival and patient satisfaction were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included standing voiding ability, penetrative sexual function, number of operative stages, surgical duration, anesthetic techniques, and donor site morbidity or acceptance. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and evidence quality was evaluated using GRADE.
Results:
A total of 19 studies comprising 769 patients (614 RFF, 155 pALT) were included. Both techniques demonstrated comparable outcomes, although the ALT required significantly less operative time (RFF vs pALT, 290 vs 516 minutes). Flap failure rates were low for both groups (1.9% RFF, 0.6% pALT; P = 0.348), and patient satisfaction was high (78% RFF vs 76.2% pALT; P = 1.0). Risk of bias assessment indicated serious selection bias due to the observational nature of studies. GRADE evaluation rated the evidence as low, reflecting the absence of randomized trials in this field.
Conclusions:
The RFF remains the most reliable technique for phalloplasty, with the pALT serving as a secondary option when the RFF is not feasible. However, the limited number of studies and the lack of standardized outcome reporting in gender-affirming surgery make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions or establish evidence-based recommendations. Although both flap types are considered safe for female-to-male phalloplasty, the small patient cohorts and absence of randomized data contribute to the ongoing uncertainty in determining the optimal approach.
