Skip to main content

Gender-Affirming Vaginectomy / Colpectomy

Vaginectomy (also termed colpectomy) is the surgical removal or obliteration of the vaginal epithelium in transmasculine individuals — performed as a stand-alone procedure for dysphoria, alongside hysterectomy, or concurrently with metoidioplasty / phalloplasty.[1][2] It is a key component of masculinizing genital surgery because the anterior vaginal wall (AVW) flap provides the workhorse tissue for urethral lengthening (UL) — essential for standing micturition.[3][4]

This page consolidates all four contemporary technique variants — transperineal sharp excision (canonical), electrocautery fulguration, robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy (RALV), and laparoscopic-assisted (with concurrent hysterectomy) — plus the AVW flap framework that drives technique selection. For the cohort-level framework, see Masculinizing Gender-Affirming Surgery. For the prerequisite procedure, see Gender-Affirming Hysterectomy.

Indications and Goals​

  • Alleviation of gender dysphoria related to the vaginal canal.[1][2]
  • Reduction of vaginal discharge.[2]
  • Provision of AVW flap tissue for UL — essential for standing micturition after metoidioplasty / phalloplasty.[1][5]
  • Reduction of urethral-fistula risk at the urethral-neourethral junction during subsequent phalloplasty / metoidioplasty.[2]
  • Eliminating persistent-vaginal-cavity risk — a recognised long-term urethral complication.[6]

Eligibility and Preoperative Considerations​

Per the Endocrine Society 2017 guidelines, GAS should be pursued only after agreement between mental-health and endocrine clinicians that surgery is medically necessary, and ideally after ≥ 1 yr consistent hormone therapy (unless not desired or contraindicated).[7] Mental-health letter often required for insurance authorisation.[3] Age of majority required for gonadectomy / hysterectomy components.[7]

Murphy 2023 — omission of preoperative pelvic examination did not significantly affect 30-day perioperative outcomes, suggesting that mandatory pelvic exams may not be necessary and that omitting them may reduce barriers to care.[8]

Surgical Techniques — 4 Variants​

A. Transperineal Sharp Excision (Canonical)​

The most widely described and commonly performed technique:[1][2]

  1. Positioning — high lithotomy with Trendelenburg; Foley catheter; concurrent flap / donor sites prepped if staged with phalloplasty.[1]
  2. Circumferential mucosal incision along the mucocutaneous junction — lateral / posterior first, then anterior sulci, then transverse anteriorly at bladder neck. Develop a plane between vaginal mucosa and underlying muscularis / adventitia.[1]
  3. Sharp mucosal excision from introitus to apex in the paravaginal space, separating mucosa from rectovaginal septum posteriorly and vesicovaginal septum anteriorly. Most technically demanding portion — vaginal-fascial-attachment complexity and testosterone-induced mucosal atrophy reduce plane distinction.[3] Peritoneal entry occurs in ~44% of cases during apical dissection but is closed primarily without sequelae.[1]
  4. AVW flap preservation — critical distinction from oncologic vaginectomy: the distal anterior vaginal wall mucosa is intentionally preserved as a pedicled flap based at the urethral meatus for UL (incorporated in ~83% of cases).[1]
  5. Closure of paravaginal dead space — purse-string sutures from apex distally to prevent hematoma / seroma / persistent cavity.[1][2]
  6. Cystoscopy to confirm ureteral patency; suprapubic tube for urinary diversion.[1]

Operative metrics: Hougen 2020 n = 40 — median OR time 135 min, median EBL 250 mL.[1] Nikkels 2019 n = 143 (largest series, predominantly excisional) — mean OR time 112 ± 40 min (colpectomy-only); median EBL 300 mL; mean LOS 3.2 ± 1.5 d.[2]

B. Electrocautery Fulguration (Ablative)​

Faster, lower-morbidity alternative — destroys epithelium in situ rather than excising:[9]

Ho 2025 comparative study (n = 70):

OutcomeExcisionFulgurationp
EBL254 mL88 mL< 0.05
OR time290 min183 min< 0.05
Vagino-cutaneous fistula10%10%NS
Vaginal-remnant recurrence8%5%0.67
Repeat vaginectomy2%5%0.50

Key limitation: fulguration does not preserve an AVW flap for UL. If UL is planned using vaginal tissue, transperineal excision (or a hybrid approach preserving AVW while fulgurating posterior/lateral walls) is preferred. Alternative UL tissue (buccal mucosa graft) can be used when fulguration is chosen.[9]

C. Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Vaginectomy (RALV)​

Minimally invasive transabdominal approach:[10][11]

  • Standard port placement; circumferential dissection from above with enhanced visualisation; AVW preserved when UL planned.
  • Jun 2021 n = 42 — median EBL 200 mL; average OR time 299 min; LOS 3 d; 30-d complications 36% (only 4/15 vaginectomy-related; all resolved conservatively); AVW + gracilis flap for pars-fixa in 86%.[10]
  • Cohen 2020 split-gracilis innovation (n = 16) — pedicled gracilis muscle flap from medial thigh, tunneled to vaginal cavity, split longitudinally: inferior half fills vaginal dead space; superior half wraps the AVW urethroplasty to buttress the suture line with well-vascularised tissue. 0% urinary fistula at mean 361 d follow-up — vs typical fistula rates ≥ 10%.[11]
  • RALV particularly useful for revision vaginectomy (excision of vaginal remnants / urethral diverticula after prior vaginectomy) — transabdominal approach avoids reopening the perineal closure.[12]

D. Laparoscopic Vaginal-Assisted Vaginectomy (with concurrent hysterectomy)​

Combined laparoscopic-vaginal approach:[13]

  • Total laparoscopic hysterectomy + BSO concurrent with vaginectomy.

  • 50% of the vagina removed laparoscopically in 87% of cases; remainder vaginally.

  • Vaginal mucosa conserved for subsequent neourethral reconstruction.
  • n = 23 — average OR time 155 ± 42 min (combined); no intraoperative complications; 3 postop complications (hemoperitoneum, urinary retention, perineal hematoma); discharge within 72 h.[13]

The AVW Flap — Workhorse for Urethral Lengthening​

Regardless of vaginectomy approach, the anterior vaginal wall flap is the workhorse for creating the pars fixa (fixed perineal portion of the neourethra):[3][1]

  • Flap design — distal AVW mucosa preserved with the base at the native urethral meatus.
  • Tubularisation — flap mobilised on its vascular pedicle and tubularised over a catheter to create a mucosa-lined conduit continuous with the native urethra.
  • Connection — pars fixa connected to the pars pendulans (penile portion of the neourethra, constructed within the phalloplasty flap) during a subsequent stage.[3][14]
  • Alternative tissue when AVW unavailable — buccal mucosa graft most common; skin grafts also described.[12][15]

Timing and Staging​

  • Concurrent with hysterectomy — Kim-Ortega 2025 cohort study n = 68: no significant difference in 30-d perioperative complications between concurrent hysterectomy-vaginectomy and staged vaginectomy after prior hysterectomy. Concurrent group had slightly higher EBL and longer OR time; no transfusions in either group.[16]
  • At the time of phalloplasty / metoidioplasty — common during staged genital reconstruction. AVW flap incorporated for UL in ~83%.[1]
  • As a stand-alone procedure — independently for dysphoria relief or discharge reduction.[2]

Genital procedures for transmasculine patients are most often performed by a multidisciplinary surgical team (plastic + gynecologic + urologic surgeons).[4]

Complications​

Nikkels 2019 (n = 143 colpectomies — most comprehensive complication data):[2]

CategoryRateExamples
Major perioperative10%Bowel injury, ureteral injury, bladder injury, hemorrhage requiring transfusion
Minor perioperative0.7%Hemorrhage
Major postoperative12%Hemorrhage, hematoma, fistula, wound infection, prolonged pain
Minor postoperative35%UTI, urinary retention, hemorrhage, hematoma
Peritoneal entry (transperineal)44%Closed primarily without sequelae
Vagino-cutaneous fistula10%Both excision and fulguration[9]
Vaginal remnant recurrence5–8%May require repeat vaginectomy[9]

Authors emphasise the high complication and reintervention rates should be discussed with patients during preoperative counselling, though long-term sequelae are rare.[2]

Technique Comparison Matrix​

ParameterTransperineal excisionFulgurationRALVLaparoscopic-assisted (with hyst)
OR time112–135 min183 min299 min155 min (combined with hyst)
EBL250–300 mL88 mL200 mL—
Fistula rate0–10%10%0% (with gracilis flap)Not reported
Vaginal-remnant recurrence8%5%Not reported0%
AVW flap available for ULYes (~83%)No (typically)Yes (~86%)Yes (100%)
LOS3.2 d—3 d< 72 h
Best fitDefault; AVW neededUL not planned; faster / lower EBLRevision; concurrent gracilis buttressConcurrent with HBSO

Postoperative Care and Long-Term Follow-Up​

  • Phalloplasty + UL patients should have ongoing follow-up with a urologist familiar with GAS.[6]
  • Urinary retention, post-void dribbling, pelvic pain with fullness, recurrent UTI → urologic referral; may indicate stricture, fistula, or persistent vaginal cavity.[6]
  • Late urethral complications (stricture + fistula) occur in ≥ 40% of UL phalloplasty patients; many require subsequent urethroplasty.[4]
  • De Brouwer 2021 ENIGI multicentre European follow-up — most frequently reported aftercare need following genital GAS: assistance in surgical recovery (47%), mental-health consultation (36%), pelvic-floor PT (20%).[17]

Outcomes and Satisfaction​

Oles 2022 systematic review of all GAS literature — high patient satisfaction for genital procedures overall, but with little concordance between study methods: ~90% of patient-focused outcome metrics appeared only once or twice across the literature, and only 1% used metrics validated in the transgender population. Standardisation of outcome instruments remains an important unmet need.[18]

Evidence Limitations​

  • Nikkels 2019 (n = 143) is the largest single-centre series — retrospective; predominantly excisional technique.[2]
  • Ho 2025 (n = 70) is the only comparative study (excision vs fulguration) — single-centre, retrospective; significant OR-time and EBL differences but equivalent fistula and recurrence rates.[9]
  • Cohen 2020 split-gracilis 0%-fistula signal (n = 16) at mean 361 d is striking but requires validation in larger cohorts.[11]
  • No RCTs comparing the four approaches.
  • Validated PROMs specific to vaginectomy outcomes lacking — Oles 2022 documents the broader transgender-PROM gap.[18]

References​

1. Hougen HY, Shoureshi PS, Sajadi KP. Gender-affirming vaginectomy — transperineal approach. Urology. 2020;144:263–265. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.084

2. Nikkels C, van Trotsenburg M, Huirne J, et al. Vaginal colpectomy in transgender men: a retrospective cohort study on surgical procedure and outcomes. J Sex Med. 2019;16(6):924–933. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.263

3. Medina CA, Fein LA, Salgado CJ. Total vaginectomy and urethral lengthening at time of neourethral prelamination in transgender men. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(10):1463–1468. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3517-y

4. Berli JU, Knudson G, Fraser L, et al. What surgeons need to know about gender confirmation surgery when providing care for transgender individuals: a review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(4):394–400. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5549

5. Committee on Gynecologic Practice and Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. Health care for transgender and gender diverse individuals: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 823. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(3):e75–e88. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004294

6. Jackson Q, Yedlinsky NT, Gray M. Lifelong care of patients after gender-affirming surgery. Am Fam Physician. 2024;109(6):560–565.

7. Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3869–3903. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-01658

8. Murphy EC, Kim Y, Weinstein MM. Omission of pelvic examination before gender-affirming hysterectomy and vaginectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;141(6):1160–1162. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000005189

9. Ho P, Schmidt-Beuchat E, Sljivich M, et al. Impact of vaginectomy technique on the outcomes of transmasculine gender-affirming surgery. J Sex Med. 2025:qdaf148. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf148

10. Jun MS, Shakir NA, Blasdel G, et al. Robotic-assisted vaginectomy during staged gender-affirming penile reconstruction surgery: technique and outcomes. Urology. 2021;152:74–78. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.01.024

11. Cohen O, Stranix JT, Zhao L, Levine J, Bluebond-Langner R. Use of a split pedicled gracilis muscle flap in robotically assisted vaginectomy and urethral lengthening for phalloplasty: a novel technique for female-to-male genital reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(6):1512–1515. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006838

12. Cohen OD, Dy GW, Nolan IT, et al. Robotic excision of vaginal remnant / urethral diverticulum for relief of urinary symptoms following phalloplasty in transgender men. Urology. 2020;136:158–161. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.027

13. Gomes da Costa A, Valentim-Lourenço A, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. Laparoscopic vaginal-assisted hysterectomy with complete vaginectomy for female-to-male genital reassignment surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(3):404–409. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2015.12.014

14. Stojanovic B, Djordjevic ML. Updates on metoidioplasty. Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(5):956–962. doi:10.1002/nau.25102

15. Jardine L, Edwards C, Janeway H, et al. A guide to caring for patients who identify as transgender and gender diverse in the emergency department. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2024;5(3):e13217. doi:10.1002/emp2.13217

16. Kim-Ortega Y, Taboada MP, Ivanenko PT, Weinstein MM. Gender-affirming vaginectomy with concurrent hysterectomy compared to staged vaginectomy after hysterectomy: a cohort study analysis of 30-day perioperative outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2025;36(4):875–880. doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06112-2

17. de Brouwer IJ, Elaut E, Becker-Hebly I, et al. Aftercare needs following gender-affirming surgeries: findings from the ENIGI multicenter European follow-up study. J Sex Med. 2021;18(11):1921–1932. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.08.005

18. Oles N, Darrach H, Landford W, et al. Gender-affirming surgery: a comprehensive, systematic review of all peer-reviewed literature and methods of assessing patient-centered outcomes (Part 2: genital reconstruction). Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):e67–e74. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004717