Pedicled Anterolateral Thigh Flap Phalloplasty
Pedicled anterolateral thigh (ALT) phalloplasty creates a neophallus from lateral-thigh fasciocutaneous tissue based on the descending branch of the lateral circumflex femoral artery. Compared with RFFF phalloplasty, ALT offers a concealable donor site and avoids microvascular anastomosis, but the flap is often bulkier, urethral construction is less straightforward, and debulking or staged revision is common.[1][2][3]
For the cross-application flap anatomy and perineal or pelvic uses, see Anterolateral Thigh Flap. For cohort-level pathway selection, see Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery.
Indications
ALT phalloplasty is best suited for patients who prioritize a hidden donor site, have acceptable thigh thickness, and either cannot or do not want to use the forearm donor site.[1][2]
| Patient Priority / Anatomy | Fit for Pedicled ALT |
|---|---|
| Concealed donor-site scar | Strong fit; lateral thigh scar is clothing-concealable |
| Avoid microsurgical vascular anastomosis | Strong fit for pedicled ALT |
| Forearm unavailable | Strong fit when inadequate hand collateral perfusion is confirmed, or prior forearm surgery, occupational needs, or scar concerns rule out RFFF. An abnormal bedside Allen test warrants further vascular assessment before excluding RFFF.[40][41] |
| Thin thigh / low subcutaneous fat | Stronger fit; tube-in-tube and aesthetics are more feasible |
| High BMI / thick thigh fat | Caution; bulk, buried phallus appearance, and debulking needs increase |
| Thin shaft and sensory planning | RFFF provides thinner shaft tissue, but comparative superiority in sensory recovery over ALT is unproven.[35] |
| Standing micturition | Possible, but usually requires staged or adjunct urethral strategy |
Contraindications and Caution Zones
ALT perfusion is reliable, but a thick thigh produces a bulky neophallus. Patients are counseled about bulk and staging before surgery.
| Scenario | Counseling Point |
|---|---|
| Thick thigh adiposity | Higher risk of bulky neophallus, difficult tube-in-tube urethra, and staged debulking |
| Smoking, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or Charlson index ≥3 | A 2026 international Delphi panel identified these as general phalloplasty risk factors and considered Charlson index ≥3 a relative contraindication.[31] |
| Standing voiding is mandatory | Discuss staged urethroplasty or adjunct flap / graft strategy |
| Need for single-stage reconstruction | ALT often needs more stages than RFFF |
| Prior thigh surgery / vascular injury | Map perforators and consider alternative flap |
| Desire for best sensory data | RFFF has stronger published sensory-outcomes evidence |
| Microsurgery unavailable but UL required | Pedicled ALT avoids vascular microsurgery, but urethral reconstruction still needs reconstructive-urology expertise |
Historical Context
Felici and Felici described free ALT phalloplasty in 2006, in a series of six patients. Pedicled ALT phalloplasty developed because the lateral-thigh flap can reach the perineum on its native pedicle, avoiding microvascular anastomosis.[4][2] Morrison et al. later described the mushroom-flap modification for glans aesthetics, and Rubino et al. reported innervated pedicled ALT phalloplasty with nerve coaptation for erogenous sensation in one patient.[5][6]
Vascular and Neural Anatomy
The pedicled ALT is based on the lateral circumflex femoral artery system, most commonly the descending branch. Perforators may be septocutaneous, musculocutaneous, or mixed, so preoperative Doppler, CTA, or careful intraoperative perforator dissection matters.[3][7][8]
| Structure | Practical Relevance |
|---|---|
| Descending branch LCFA | Dominant pedicle for most pedicled ALT phalloplasty flaps |
| Perforator variability | Musculocutaneous perforators are common; harvest may require intramuscular dissection through vastus lateralis |
| Hot zone | Perforators are classically found near the midpoint of the ASIS-to-superolateral-patella line. In a head-and-neck series (n = 52), a sizable proximal perforator near the tensor fasciae latae–iliotibial tract junction was present in more than 70% of patients; 71.4% of proximal perforators arose from the oblique LCFA branch, and proximal pedicles were shorter than midpoint pedicles. This raises a reach consideration for pedicled transfer.[9] |
| Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve | Main sensory nerve for pedicled ALT flap; can remain partly intact or be coapted |
| Perforator nerves | Median and superior perforator nerves may contribute to flap sensation[10] |
Technique
Flap Design and Transfer
The flap is centered over mapped perforators on the anterolateral thigh. It is harvested as a fasciocutaneous flap with the LCFA pedicle left attached; subcutaneous passage toward the perineum is one transfer option.[2][3] In a published combined ALT–RFFF technique, the pedicled ALT instead passes beneath rectus femoris and adductors without pedicle tension or torsion.[13]
| Step | Technical Goal |
|---|---|
| Perforator mapping | Identify reliable perforators and plan flap dimensions |
| Skin paddle design | Balance shaft length and girth against donor-site closure and bulk. If thigh skin will line the neourethra, mark its urethral strip and arrange preoperative hair removal; laser reduces but may not eliminate intraurethral hair.[36][37] |
| Pedicle dissection | Preserve the descending-branch LCFA pedicle and adjacent femoral motor branches; assess reach without torsion or tension, and consider free-flap conversion if pedicle tension is excessive.[13] |
| Tunnel creation | Create a generous transfer route without pedicle compression, tension, or torsion; a published combined ALT–RFFF technique passes beneath rectus femoris and adductors.[13] |
| Phallic shaping | Tubularize flap as shaft-only or tube-in-tube depending on urethral plan |
| Inset | Secure phallus at pubic / perineal base; manage clitoral burial and scrotoplasty according to stage |
| Donor-site closure | Primary closure, skin graft, or pre-expanded closure depending on width / thigh circumference |
Urethral Construction Options
Urethral planning is the central ALT decision. Unlike RFFF, the ALT flap is often too thick for dependable single-flap tube-in-tube urethroplasty. In Ghent's mixed-indication series of 93 ALT phalloplasties (79 gender affirming), seven had no urethral reconstruction. Among the remaining 86, five used tube-in-tube ALT (5.8%); the other 81 (94.2%) used prelamination or a separate urethral flap.[11] In Ghent's mixed-indication cohort, fistula or stricture occurred in 7/8 (87.5%) prelaminated ALT skin-graft cases; this differs from Robinson's staged graft urethroplasty after shaft transfer.[11][12]
| Urethral Strategy | Description | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|
| Tube-in-tube ALT / mushroom flap | Inner ALT tube forms urethra, outer tube forms shaft; mushroom extension improves glans appearance | One-stage concept, described by Morrison in three patients. Tube-in-tube was feasible in about 6% of the Ghent ALT series and had a 20% urethral complication rate (n = 5)[5][11] |
| Staged skin-graft urethroplasty | Stage I shaft-only ALT; Stage II ventral opening + grafted urethral plate; Stage III tubularization | More stages, but avoids forcing a bulky tube-in-tube design[12] |
| ALT shaft + RFFF urethra | Pedicled ALT for shaft and smaller RFFF for neourethra | Better urethral tissue but reintroduces microsurgery and forearm donor site[13] |
| ALT shaft + pedicled SCIP urethra | A separate superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap forms the neourethra without forearm free-flap transfer | In D'Arpa's retrospective mixed-indication series, fistula or stricture occurred in 10/38 (26.3%). A later same-center retrospective series of gender-affirming ALT shaft plus SCIP urethra found urethral complications in 12/33 (36%) and complete SCIP urethral-flap loss in 5/33 (15%); the center moved away from routine pairing after December 2019 because of possible compression by the ALT flap.[11][39] |
| Pedicled labia minora flap urethra | Local genital flap forms pars fixa / pendulous urethral components | Avoids forearm urethral flap; standing voiding rates vary[14] |
| Free ALT outer + RFFF inner (non-pedicled comparator) | Two free flaps in a modified tube-in-tube design, distinct from pedicled ALT shaft transfer | Avoid constricting the inner RFFF neourethra with the ALT wrap; postoperative swelling can threaten its perfusion.[13] Selected-center series (Staud, n = 21) reported complications in 52.4%, mainly urethral fistula and stenosis.[15] |
Staging
ALT phalloplasty is often a longer staged project than RFFF because urethral construction and debulking are frequently separated. The Stage II and III rows below describe Robinson's pathway for patients choosing urethral lengthening and vaginectomy.[12] Shaft-only phalloplasty with vaginal preservation has also been described.[38]
| Stage | Operation | Timing / Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Stage I | Pedicled ALT transfer as shaft-only or primary tube-in-tube phalloplasty | Hysterectomy / BSO may already be complete or performed separately |
| Stage II | Vaginectomy, pars fixa urethroplasty, scrotoplasty, ventral opening of ALT, grafted urethral plate | Robinson staged approach performs this at least 6 months after transfer[12] |
| Stage III | Tubularization of grafted urethral plate | Usually at least 6 months after urethral-plate creation |
| Refinement stages | Debulking, glansplasty, testicular implants, urethral revision | Debulking is common. For a postoperative stricture, the EAU guideline strongly recommends deferring endoscopic incision or urethroplasty until at least six months after neophalloplasty; suprapubic drainage is first-line for severe early obstruction or retention.[33] |
| Prosthetic stage | Erectile prosthesis | Delayed until flap and urethra mature |
Outcomes
Flap Survival and Wound Complications
Pedicled ALT flap survival is high, but nonurethral wound complications and dehiscence can be more common than with RFFF in some datasets.[1][16] In a 147-transfer mixed-flap cohort, 15% developed excessive phallic turgor requiring emergent intervention; rapidly increasing swelling warrants urgent assessment for congestion or hematoma and relief of intraphallic pressure.[32]
| Study / Review | N | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Netshiongolwe 2025 SR | 769 total; 155 pedicled ALT | Flap failure 0.6% for pedicled ALT vs 1.9% for RFFF (P = 0.348); satisfaction 76.2% vs 78%. Observational studies, GRADE low; the review concludes RFFF remains the most reliable technique[1] |
| Ascha 2018 | 213; 64 ALT / 149 RFFF | Single-center retrospective cohort with at least six months of follow-up. Overall urethral complications were 21/64 (32.8%) with ALT and 36/149 (24.2%) with RFFF (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.81–2.91; p = 0.193). ALT had higher odds of urethral fistula (OR 2.50), nonurethral complications (OR 2.38) and phallus wound dehiscence (OR 5.03)[16] |
| Wang 2026 | 57; 10 ALT / 25 RFFF / 22 abdominal | Single-institution retrospective cohort with at least 30 days of follow-up (typically 90). Overall complications were 20/25 (80%) for RFFF, 6/10 (60%) for ALT, and 9/22 (40.9%) for abdominal flaps (p = 0.023). Staging differed (8/25, 5/10, and 22/22, respectively).[17] |
The datasets disagree. Outcomes depend heavily on whether the ALT urethra is tube-in-tube, staged skin-graft, SCIP / labia-minora assisted, or combined with a forearm urethral flap.
Standing Micturition and Urethral Outcomes
| Urethral Strategy | Key Outcome |
|---|---|
| Staged skin-graft urethroplasty | In Robinson 2023's retrospective 24-patient cohort, 21/24 (87.5%) voided standing at data collection; 11 patients had at least one urologic complication requiring additional operative intervention. Fistula occurred in 8/24 (33.3%) and stricture in 5/24 (20.8%).[12] |
| ALT or SCIP shaft + pedicled labia minora flap | Al-Tamimi 2020 reported standing voiding in 9/16 (56.3%), fistula in 4/16 (25%), stricture in 6/16 (37.5%), and temporary perineostomy in 3/16 (18.7%) across the mixed ALT/SCIP cohort.[14] |
| ALT + RFFF double flap | van der Sluis 2017 (n = 19) reported long-term urinary complications in 53% of patients, mostly strictures[13] |
| All phalloplasty techniques | Hu 2022 meta-analysis (21 studies, 1,566 patients) found a pooled urethral fistula or stenosis rate of 48.9% and standing voiding in 91.5% across phalloplasty techniques[18] |
Sensation and Sexual Function
Pedicled ALT may preserve some LFCN-based sensation through the pedicle, and neurorrhaphy to the dorsal clitoral branch of the pudendal nerve has been described in a single patient (Rubino 2009). Evidence is weaker than for RFFF, but the anatomy supports sensate reconstruction.[6][10][19]
| Domain | Counseling Point |
|---|---|
| Protective sensation | May arise from preserved LFCN territory and / or nerve coaptation |
| Erogenous sensation | Requires careful nerve strategy and clitoral management |
| Orgasm | Usually depends on retained / buried clitoral complex plus cortical integration |
| Evidence quality | Sensory outcomes are heterogeneously measured; no universal coaptation standard exists[19] |
A low-GRADE review reported patient satisfaction of 76.2% after pedicled ALT versus 78.0% after RFFF.[1] A separate RFFF/fibula series (n = 32; no ALT) reported 72% very satisfied with sexual function.[20] In a mixed-surgery cohort, patient-reported satisfaction with sexual functioning of the neophallus showed no statistically significant difference between phalloplasty recipients with and without a prosthesis (14 versus 60; p = 0.99).[21]
Debulking and Aesthetic Revision
Debulking is a common part of the pedicled ALT pathway. The need depends on thigh thickness, flap width, whether a urethra is included, and desired final girth.
| Revision Issue | Practical Point |
|---|---|
| Bulk reduction | Often staged 6-12 months after transfer once perfusion is stable |
| Buried appearance | More common in higher BMI or thick-thigh patients |
| Glansplasty / coronoplasty | Often delayed until shaft contour settles |
| Prosthesis planning | Extra soft tissue may protect prosthesis, but excessive bulk can impair cosmesis and device positioning |
| Exstrophy / deficient pubic tissue | ALT bulk can be advantageous; Harris 2021's 11-patient exstrophy-epispadias series included five ALT recipients: one died of acute pulmonary embolism, and all four surviving ALT recipients required at least one debulking procedure.[22] |
Pre-expansion of the ALT donor site can permit primary closure and avoid a skin-graft donor scar, but the cited technique describes only peripheral thinning with fat displaced centrally; shaft bulk may persist. It adds another stage and is center-specific.[23]
Erectile Prosthesis
Penetrative function usually requires delayed erectile prosthesis placement after ALT phalloplasty. Before device pocket or reservoir dissection, identify the ALT vascular pedicle, clitoris, and neourethra; if a retropubic reservoir is chosen, place it contralateral to the pedicle.[30] An AFAB-focused expert review advises correcting urethral complications and completing glansplasty at least six months before implantation; soft-tissue coverage and firm proximal fixation address erosion and migration risks in a neophallus without corpora cavernosa.[24][25][30]
| Prosthesis Issue | Counseling Point |
|---|---|
| Timing | Usually delayed until phallus shape, sensation, wounds, and urethra are stable |
| Soft tissue coverage | ALT bulk may help protect against extrusion, but can complicate sizing and concealment |
| Device choice | Inflatable, malleable, and transgender-specific devices have all been used |
| Revision risk | Infection, malposition, erosion, and mechanical failure remain common. In a 2026 cohort of 694 primary three-piece inflatable implants after phalloplasty (predominantly RFFF), estimated 15-year cumulative revision was 65.1% for any cause and 30.6% for mechanical failure.[34] |
| Function | Patients retaining a prosthesis can often achieve penetrative intercourse. In one series of 32 men after phalloplasty (5 ALT), 21 of 45 implanted devices, including revision implants (46.7%), were replaced or removed[24] |
Donor-Site Morbidity
The lateral-thigh scar is the main advantage. It is usually concealed by clothing and avoids the socially visible forearm donor site. Functional morbidity is generally acceptable, though numbness and objective strength changes can occur.[26][27][28]
| Domain | Evidence Signal |
|---|---|
| Quadriceps strength | Usually preserved subjectively; large head-and-neck ALT series show low functional morbidity[28] |
| Sensation | Donor-site numbness or tingling is common after LFCN harvest or disturbance (82% in one head-and-neck series)[26][27] |
| Return to activity | Most patients return to baseline activity despite measurable sensory or strength changes |
| Closure | Primary closure depends on flap width relative to thigh circumference; large phalloplasty paddles often need grafting unless pre-expanded[29] |
Comparison With RFFF
| Feature | Pedicled ALT | RFFF |
|---|---|---|
| Donor-site scar | Concealed lateral thigh | Visible forearm |
| Microsurgery | Not required for pedicled flap | Required |
| Flap bulk | Often bulky; debulking common | Thin and pliable |
| Tube-in-tube urethra | Feasible mainly in selected thin thighs | Core design advantage |
| Sensation evidence | Less extensive than for RFFF | Stronger sensory literature |
| Flap failure | Very low | Very low |
| Urethral morbidity | Technique-dependent; can be high | High but more standardized |
| Best candidate | Prioritizes a concealed thigh donor site or cannot use the forearm | Prioritizes a thinner shaft and accepts a visible forearm donor site |
For a free-flap alternative with a concealed donor site and large phallic volume but limited tactile sensation, see MLD Phalloplasty.
Operative Pearls
- Measure thigh thickness before promising tube-in-tube urethral construction.
- Map perforators carefully.
- Make the tunnel generous; pedicle compression or kinking can defeat the no-microsurgery advantage. In one published institutional protocol, the neophallus is supported against kinking and color, turgor, and Doppler signal are checked during early mobilization; a change prompts immediate surgical review.[42]
- Treat urethral construction as a separate plan.
- Tell patients upfront that debulking is usually needed.
- Preserve and plan LFCN strategy deliberately if sensation is a priority.
- Keep RFFF and SCIP options in the discussion for urethral reconstruction, even when ALT is chosen for the shaft.
References
1. Netshiongolwe T, Mitchell S, Kathiravelupillai S, et al. Pedicled flaps versus free radial forearm flap for phalloplasty in female to male gender-confirming surgery: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2025;95(6):661-666. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004502
2. Xu KY, Watt AJ. The pedicled anterolateral thigh phalloplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2018;45(3):399-406. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2018.03.011
3. Terrell M, Roberts W, Price CW, et al. Anatomy of the pedicled anterolateral thigh flap for phalloplasty in transitioning-males. Clin Anat. 2018;31(2):160-168. doi:10.1002/ca.23017
4. Felici N, Felici A. A new phalloplasty technique: the free anterolateral thigh flap phalloplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(2):153-157. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2005.05.016
5. Morrison SD, Son J, Song J, et al. Modification of the tube-in-tube pedicled anterolateral thigh flap for total phalloplasty: the mushroom flap. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;72 Suppl 1:S22-S26. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000072
6. Rubino C, Figus A, Dessy LA, et al. Innervated island pedicled anterolateral thigh flap for neo-phallic reconstruction in female-to-male transsexuals. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(3):e45-e49. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.11.056
7. Hsieh F, Leow OQY, Cheong CF, Hung SY, Tsao CK. Musculoseptocutaneous perforator of anterolateral thigh flap: a clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(1):103e-110e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000007471
8. Lee YC, Chen WC, Chou TM, Shieh SJ. Anatomical variability of the anterolateral thigh flap perforators: vascular anatomy and its clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(4):1097-1107. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001103
9. Miyamoto S, Fujisawa K, Kurita D, Shibuya M, Okazaki M. New anatomic landmark for perforator of anterolateral thigh flap in preoperative ultrasonography. Laryngoscope. 2025;135(10):3623-3629. doi:10.1002/lary.32223
10. Ribuffo D, Cigna E, Gargano F, Spalvieri C, Scuderi N. The innervated anterolateral thigh flap: anatomical study and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(2):464-470. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000149481.73952.f3
11. D'Arpa S, Claes K, Lumen N, Oieni S, Hoebeke P, Monstrey S. Urethral reconstruction in anterolateral thigh flap phalloplasty: a 93-case experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(2):382e-392e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005278
12. Robinson I, Chao BW, Blasdel G, et al. Anterolateral thigh phalloplasty with staged skin graft urethroplasty: technique and outcomes. Urology. 2023;177:204-212. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.038
13. van der Sluis WB, Smit JM, Pigot GLS, et al. Double flap phalloplasty in transgender men: surgical technique and outcome of pedicled anterolateral thigh flap phalloplasty combined with radial forearm free flap urethral reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2017;37(8):917-923. doi:10.1002/micr.30190
14. Al-Tamimi M, Pigot GL, Ronkes B, et al. The first experience of using the pedicled labia minora flap for urethral lengthening in transgender men undergoing anterolateral thigh and superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap phalloplasty: a multicenter study on clinical outcomes. Urology. 2020;138:179-187. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.041
15. Staud CJ, Zaussinger M, Duscher D, et al. A modified microvascular tube-in-tube concept for penile construction in female-to-male transsexuals: combined radial forearm free flap with anterolateral thigh flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021;74(9):2364-2371. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.01.016
16. Ascha M, Massie JP, Morrison SD, Crane CN, Chen ML. Outcomes of single stage phalloplasty by pedicled anterolateral thigh flap versus radial forearm free flap in gender confirming surgery. J Urol. 2018;199(1):206-214. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.084
17. Wang E, Cleff B, Basta A, et al. Flap choice in gender-affirming phalloplasty affects postoperative complication rates. Microsurgery. 2026;46(1):e70154. doi:10.1002/micr.70154
18. Hu CH, Chang CJ, Wang SW, Chang KV. A systematic review and meta-analysis of urethral complications and outcomes in transgender men. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(1):10-24. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.006
19. Ferrin PC, Burghardt E, Xu J, Peters BR. Optimizing neurorrhaphy to improve sensation in phalloplasty: a systematic review. Int J Impot Res. 2026;38(4):324-332. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01021-w
20. Papadopulos NA, Ehrenberger B, Zavlin D, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction in transgender men after phalloplasty in a retrospective study. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;87(1):91-97. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000002693
21. de Rooij FPW, van de Grift TC, Veerman H, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after genital gender-affirming surgery with versus without urethral lengthening in transgender men. J Sex Med. 2021;18(5):974-981. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.002
22. Harris TGW, Manyevitch R, Wu WJ, et al. Pedicled anterolateral thigh and radial forearm free flap phalloplasty for penile reconstruction in patients with bladder exstrophy. J Urol. 2021;205(3):880-887. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001404
23. D'Arpa S, Colebunders B, Stillaert F, Monstrey S. Pre-expanded anterolateral thigh perforator flap for phalloplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2017;44(1):129-141. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2016.08.004
24. van der Sluis WB, Pigot GLS, Al-Tamimi M, et al. A retrospective cohort study on surgical outcomes of penile prosthesis implantation surgery in transgender men after phalloplasty. Urology. 2019;132:195-201. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.010
25. Pigot GLS, Sigurjonsson H, Ronkes B, Al-Tamimi M, van der Sluis WB. Surgical experience and outcomes of implantation of the ZSI 100 FtM malleable penile implant in transgender men after phalloplasty. J Sex Med. 2020;17(1):152-158. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.09.019
26. Noel CW, Vosler PS, Hong M, et al. Motor and sensory morbidity associated with the anterolateral thigh perforator free flap. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(5):1057-1061. doi:10.1002/lary.26865
27. Bai S, Zhang ZQ, Wang ZQ, et al. Comprehensive assessment of the donor-site of the anterolateral thigh flap: a prospective study in 33 patients. Head Neck. 2018;40(7):1356-1365. doi:10.1002/hed.25109
28. Hanasono MM, Skoracki RJ, Yu P. A prospective study of donor-site morbidity after anterolateral thigh fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous free flap harvest in 220 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(1):209-214. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c495ed
29. Chang C, Rodriguez-Mantilla I, Herrera AC, et al. Donor site in anterolateral thigh (ALT) free flaps: a systematic review of closure techniques and introduction of a management algorithm. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;105:243-259. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2025.04.008
30. Chiriaco G, Looney A, Christopher AN, Ralph D, Lee WG. "Erectile device insertion following phalloplasty in transgender and non-binary individuals assigned female at birth: a narrative review." Int J Impot Res. 2023;35:664-671. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00764-8
31. Lo Re M, Pezzoli M, Cocci A, et al. "Urological issues in masculinising genital surgery: a Delphi consensus study." BJU Int. 2026. doi:10.1111/bju.70428
32. Ferrin PC, Llado-Farrulla M, Berli JU, Annen A, Peters BR. "Complications and management of excessive phallic turgor following gender-affirming phalloplasty." J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024;90:105-113. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.01.020
33. European Association of Urology. "EAU Guidelines on Urethral Strictures: Disease Management in Transgender Patients." 2026. Guideline
34. Lee WG, Gobbo A, di Giovanni A, et al. "Long-term outcomes for mechanical failure and revision following primary gender-affirming penile prosthesis insertion." BJU Int. 2026. doi:10.1111/bju.70258
35. Akhoondinasab MR, Saraee A, Forghani SF, Mousavi A, Shahrbaf MA. "Comparison of the results of phalloplasty using radial free forearm flap and anterolateral thigh in Iran from 2014 to 2019." Indian J Plast Surg. 2024;57(5):387-393. doi:10.1055/s-0044-1787060
36. Zhang WR, Garrett GL, Arron ST, Garcia MM. "Laser hair removal for genital gender affirming surgery." Transl Androl Urol. 2016;5(3):381-387. doi:10.21037/tau.2016.03.27
37. Pigot GLS, Belboukhaddaoui S, Bouman MB, et al. "Effectiveness of preoperative depilation of the urethral donor site for phalloplasty: neourethral hair growth and its effects on voiding." Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(4):770-775. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2019.04.005
38. Moorefield AK, Veith JP, Mills A, Hebert K, McCormick B, Goodwin IA. "Vaginal preservation in shaft-only phalloplasty: Y-to-V advancement technique for clitoral hood redundancy and reduction labiaplasty." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(1):186e-189e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000010932
39. De Gelder A, Young-Afat D, Claes K, et al. "Use of the superficial circumflex iliac artery perforator flap for urethra and/or shaft reconstruction in gender-diverse persons: 10-year single-center experience." Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025;155(6):1036e-1044e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011830
40. Miller TJ, Safa B, Watt AJ, Chen ML, Lin WC. "An abnormal clinical Allen's Test is not a contraindication for free radial forearm flap." Clin Case Rep. 2020;8(11):2191-2194. doi:10.1002/ccr3.3093
41. Wood JW, Broussard KC, Burkey B. "Preoperative testing for radial forearm free flaps to reduce donor site morbidity." JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(2):183-186. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2013.1357
42. Rifkin WJ, Daar DA, Cripps CN, et al. "Gender-affirming phalloplasty: a postoperative protocol for success." Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(6):e4394. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004394