Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychological and Psychosocial Aspects of Uterine and Penile Transplantation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Psychosocial Care of End-Stage Organ Disease and Transplant Patients

  • 873 Accesses

Abstract

Uterine and penile transplantation are emerging as the latest forms of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) and may help meet the needs of individuals struggling with devastating infertility and genitourinary deficits. The conditions leading to absolute uterine infertility and penile amputation have profound implications for the patient’s sense of identity, body image, quality of life, and capacity for intimacy. Although the worldwide experience with these forms of VCA is limited, encouraging outcomes in several cases have been noted. The optimal psychosocial assessment of these patients is likely to contain elements similar to solid organ and other VCA patient evaluations with modifications relevant to fertility, donor, and partner factors involved. Ethical considerations related to exposing a fetus to immunosuppressive medications, risk of graft loss, and the plan to remove the graft after child birth for uterine transplantation are all areas of active discussion in VCA and transplant ethics communities. This chapter will review the reproductive VCA experience and discuss the psychosocial assessment for these patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. https://www.unos.org/transplantation/history. Available from: https://www.unos.org/transplantation/history.

  2. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, Kvarnström N, Mölne J, Dahm-Kähler P, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):607–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Diaz-Garcia C, Akhi S, Wallin A, Pellicer A, Brannstrom M. First report on fertility after allogenic uterus transplantation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(11):1491–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fegeeh W, Raffa H, Jabbad H, Marzouki A. Transplantation of the human uterus. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2002;76(3):245–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Erman Akar M, Ozkan O, Aydinuraz B, Dirican K, Cincik M, Mendilcioglu I, et al. Clinical pregnancy after uterus transplantation. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1358–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, Enskog A, Mölne J, Kvarnström N, et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1228–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Milliez J. Uterine transplantation FIGO committee for the ethical aspects of human reproduction and women’s health. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106(3):270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Arian SE, Flyckt RL, Farrell RM, Falcone T, Tzakis AG. Characterizing women with interest in uterine transplant clinical trials in the United States: who seeks information on this experimental treatment? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):190–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johannesson L, Wallis K, Koon EC, McKenna GJ, Anthony T, Leffingwell SG, et al. Living uterus donation and transplantation: experience of interest and screening in a single center in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):331e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rodrigue JR, Tomich D, Fleishman A, Glazier AK. Vascularized composite allograft donation and transplantation: a survey of public attitudes in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2017;17(10):2687–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Saso S, Clarke A, Bracewell-Milnes T, Al-Memar M, Hamed AH, Thum MY, et al. Survey of perceptions of health care professionals in the United Kingdom toward uterine transplant. Prog Transplant. 2015;25(1):56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wennberg AL, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Milsom I, Brannstrom M. Attitudes towards new assisted reproductive technologies in Sweden: a survey in women 30-39 years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(1):38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olbrisch M, Levenson J, Hamer R. The PACT: a rating scale for the study of clinic decision-making in psychosocial screening of organ transplant candidates. Clin Transpl. 1989;3:164–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Futterman A, Wellisch D, Bond G, Carr C. The psychosocial levels system. A new rating scale to identify and assess emotional difficulties during bone marrow transplantation. Psychosomatics. 1991;32(2):177–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Twillman R, Manetto C, Wellisch D, Wolcott D. The transplant evaluation rating scale. A revision of the psychosocial levels system for evaluating organ transplant candidates. Psychosomatics. 1993;34(2):144–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Maldonado J, Dubois H, David E, Sher Y, Lolak S, Dyal J, et al. The Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplantation (SIPAT): a new tool for the psychosocial evaluation of pre-transplant candidates. Psychosomatics. 2012;53(2):123–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goetzmann L, Ruegg L, Stamm M, Ambühl P, Boehler A, Halter J, et al. Psychosocial profiles after transplantation: a 24-month follow-up of heart, lung, liver, kidney and allogeneic bone-marrow patients. Transplantation. 2008;86(5):662–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Owen J, Bonds C, Wellisch D. Psychiatric evaluations of heart transplant candidates: predicting post-transplant hospitalizations, rejection episodes, and survival. Psychosomatics. 2006;47(3):213–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shapiro P, Williams D, Foray A, Gelman I, Wukich N, Sciacca R. Psychosocial evaluation and prediction of compliance problems and morbidity after heart transplantation. Transplantation. 1995;60(12):1462–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Iacoviello B, Shenoy A, Braoude J, Jennings T, Vaidya S, Brouwer J, et al. The live donor assessment tool: a psychosocial assessment tool for live organ donors. Psychosomatics. 2015;56(3):254–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johannesson L, Jarvholm S. Uterus transplantation: current progress and future prospects. Int J Womens Health. 2016;8:43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hitschfeld M, Schneekloth T, Kennedy C, Rummans T, Niazi S, Vasquez A, et al. The psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation: a cohort study of its association with survival among lung transplant recipients. Psychosomatics. 2016;57(5):489–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jowsey-Gregoire S, Kumnig M. Standardizing psychosocial assessment for vascularized composite allotransplantation. 2016;21(5). Available from: www.co-transplantation.com

  24. Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Clarke A, Brännström M. Uterus transplantation trial: psychological evaluation of recipients and partners during the post-transplantation year. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):1010–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ejzenberg D, Mendes L, Haddad L, Baracat E, D’Albuquerque L, Andraus W. Uterine transplantation: a systematic review. Clinics. 2016;71(11):679–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Blume C, Pischke S, von Versen-Hoynck F, Gunter HH, Gross MM. Pregnancies in liver and kidney transplant recipients: a review of the current literature and recommendation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(8):1123–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lavoue V, Vigneau C, Duros S, Boudjema K, Leveque J, Piver P, et al. Which donor for uterus transplants: brain-dead donor or living donor? A systematic review. Transplantation. 2017;101(2):267–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kvarnström N, Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, Olausson M, Brännström M. Live donors of the initial observational study of uterus transplantation—psychological and medical follow-up until 1 year after surgery in the 9 cases. Transplantation. 2017;101(3):664–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Petrini C, Gainotti S, Morresi A, Costa A. Ethical issues in uterine transplantation: psychological implications and informed consent. Transplant Proc. 2017;49:707–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Api M, Boza A, Ceyhan M. Could the female-to-male transgender population be donor candidates for uterus transplantation? Turkish J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;14(4):233–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schol I, Ko D, Cetrulo CJ. Genitourinary vascularized composite allotransplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2017;22(5):484–9. Epub ahead of print

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cetrulo CL Jr, Li K, Salinas HM, Treiser MD, Schol I, Barrisford GW, et al. Penis transplantation: first US experience. Ann Surg. 2018;267(5):983–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grady D. ‘Whole again’: A vet maimed by an I.E.D. receives a transplanted penis. New York Times [serial on the Internet]. 2018 Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/23/health/soldier-penis-transplant-ied.html

  34. Lucas PA, Page PR, Phillip RD, Bennett AN. The impact of genital trauma on wounded servicemen: qualitative study. Injury. 2014;45(5):825–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Merwe A, Graewe F, Zuhlke A, Barsdorf NW, Zarrabi AD, Viljoen JT, et al. Penile allotransplantation for penis amputation following ritual circumcision: a case report with 24 months of follow-up. Lancet. 2017;390(10099):1038–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Caplan A, Kimberly L, Parent B, Sosin M, Rodriguez E. The ethics of penile transplantation: preliminary recommendations. Transplantation. 2017;101:1200–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rasper A, Terlecki R. Ushering in the era of penile transplantation. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(2):216–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumnig M, Jowsey-Gregoire S. Key psychosocial challenges in vascularized composite allotransplantation. World J Transplant. 2016;6(1):91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Andrea Ament

  2. Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology and Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA

    Sheila G. Jowsey-Gregoire

Authors
  1. Andrea Ament
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheila G. Jowsey-Gregoire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Ament .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Yelizaveta Sher

  2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    José R. Maldonado

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ament, A., Jowsey-Gregoire, S.G. (2019). Psychological and Psychosocial Aspects of Uterine and Penile Transplantation. In: Sher, Y., Maldonado, J. (eds) Psychosocial Care of End-Stage Organ Disease and Transplant Patients. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94914-7_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94914-7_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94913-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94914-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation