Review articleSurgery in disorders of sex development (DSD) with a gender issue: If (why), when, and how?
Introduction
Ten years after the Chicago consensus meeting [1], genital surgery continues to raise questions and criticisms concerning its indications, its timing, and its technical aspects [2], [3]. Opinions are more common than facts as the volume of patients in each group of disorders of sex development (DSD) is small, management is extraordinarily heterogeneous across centers, and pre- and post-treatment evaluations are mostly subjective, examiner-dependent, and culturally influenced. Hence, the classical methodology of evidence-based medicine meets major hurdles, which are responsible for several unanswered questions that we attempt to list in this standpoint article.
The first major hurdle is the definition of the acronym DSD. Does it include all congenital developmental genito-sexual anomalies, and, if so, are undescended testicles, hypospadias, or even labial adhesions included? Or should the definition be limited to situations in which there is an inadequacy between genital anatomy (phenotype) and biological profile (biotype), which may raise questions about gender assignment? This restrictive definition of DSD does not identify genital anomalies with no detectable biological or chromosomal anomalies, which represent the vast majority of patients.
The second hurdle is semantic as the terms “gender,” “sex,” “sexual,” have discordant interpretations. “Gender” is a social concept, which is the way the society mirrors the “individual identity.” It does not take into account the “individual identity” (“inside identity”) and the future “gender role” (“behavioral identity”), which are invisible at birth and the modalities of which are mostly unknown, that is multifactorial [4]. The term “genital” has been avoided in the Chicago meeting, although atypical genito-sexual development should be the main focus of this discussion. Hence, it is essential to correlate phenotype and biotype as atypical anatomy is the first clinical sign from which suspicion of a DSD is raised in the newborn and will lead to a chain of investigations to define to which group of DSD the patient belongs.
Section snippets
Who are we talking about? What difficulties are met in the management of each of the following DSD groups?
Using the Chicago canvas [5], five main groups of DSD patients may be identified, submitted to the gender assignment process, and may be considered for a surgical genital reconstruction.
- (1)
In the 46,XX DSD group, classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) represents the most common diagnosis. There is usually no gender issue in this group, except in case of late diagnosis and severely masculinized 46,XX individuals. Genital phenotype of prenatally non-treated 46,XX CAH patients at birth
Aims of surgery
- •
Restore functional genital anatomy to allow future penetrative intercourse (as a male or a female),
- •
Facilitate future reproduction (as a male or a female) when possible,
- •
Reduce urological hazards related to abnormal genito-urinary anatomy, that is urinary tract infections, with potential upper urinary tract consequences and urinary incontinence,
- •
Avoid fluid or blood retention in vaginal or uterine cavities,
- •
Avoid late virilization at puberty in individuals raised as girls or breast development in
The context of decision
Before birth: When there is an index case in the family, especially CAH, targeting fetuses at risk has been considerably improved with early detection of fetal DNA (SRY) in maternal serum at 4–5 weeks of gestation, followed by chorionic villus sampling at 10 WG to possibly treat with dexamethasone affected 46,XX CAH fetuses. This option aims at diminishing fetal virilization [25], [40].
In other cases, discrepancies between prenatal ultrasound findings and fetal karyotype may raise the question
Where do we stand in 2015 with these very distinct situations?
To attempt to answer this question, a detailed questionnaire reviewing the most difficult clinical situations was sent to several world DSD experts.
Conclusions
It appears obvious that given the complexity and heterogeneity of presentation there is no consensus regarding the indications, the timing, the procedure, and the evaluation of outcome of DSD surgery. The levels of evidence of the answers given by the experts are low (B and C), most decisions being supported by team expertise. Literature mostly reports short clinical series, which cannot be compared considering the heterogeneousness of pathologies and management between centers. There are,
Conflict of interest
None.
Funding
None.
References (87)
- et al.
Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders
J Pediatr Urol
(2006) - et al.
The ESPU/SPU standpoint on the surgical management of Disorders of Sex Development (DSD)
J Pediatr Urol
(2014) - et al.
Potential determinant factors of sexual identity in ambiguous genitalia
J Pediatr Urol
(2005) - et al.
Late prenatal dexamethasone and phenotype variations in 46,XX CAH: concerns about current protocols and benefits for surgical procedures
J Pediatr Urol
(2014) Fetal genital anatomy reconstructive implications
J Urol
(1999)- et al.
Prenatal diagnosis and treatment of 21-hydroxylase deficiency
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol
(1993) - et al.
Surgical outcomes and patients' satisfaction with suprapubic phalloplasty
J Sex Med
(2014) The formation of an artificial vagina without operation
Am J Org
(1938)- et al.
Partial urogenital mobilization: a limited proximal dissection
J Pediatr Urol
(2006) - et al.
Long-term outcome of vaginal reconstruction: comparing techniques and timing
J Pediatr Urol
(2007)