Operating room at Clínica 3 de Mayo

Our Own Complication Rates

These figures come from a retrospective analysis of the last ten years at Clínica 3 de Mayo, updated in September 2026.

Rates by Procedure

For each operation, we show our rates alongside the figures published in the medical literature.

Gender Affirmation

Gender Affirmation

Vaginoplasty

Vaginoplasty: Complication, Published data, Clínica 3 de Mayo
ComplicationPublished dataClínica 3 de Mayo
Overall rate20-40%8.3%
Major complications (early reoperation)5-15%0.6%
Tissue necrosis1-5%0.9%
Infection2-10%1%
Hematoma2-8%3%
Vaginal stenosis10-20%1%
Vaginal prolapse1-7%0.5%
Rectovaginal fistula0.5-3%0.3%
Urethral stricture2-10%1%
Revision surgery20-40%6%

Weight Loss and Post-Bariatric Surgery

Aesthetic Surgery

How We Measure These Complication Rates

These figures come from a retrospective analysis of the last ten years at Clínica 3 de Mayo, updated in September 2026. Every event is logged in the patient's electronic medical record, using the hospital's international code.

Major complication
Needs an emergency procedure before discharge or within 30 days of the original operation. Expressed as a percentage of all procedures performed.
Minor complication
Treated without a corrective procedure, or with one carried out under local anesthesia. Expressed as a percentage of all procedures.
Reoperations and revisions
Tracked over the short and long term.

Bibliography

The published sources behind our comparison ranges.

Vaginoplasty and Colovaginoplasty

Grade 2a (systematic reviews and large series).

  1. Bustos SS et al. Complications and Patient-reported Outcomes in Transfemale Vaginoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3510. Systematic review, 3,700+ patients (main reference).
  2. Ding C et al. Urinary Complications after Penile Inversion Vaginoplasty. Can Urol Assoc J. 2023;17(4):121-128. 27 studies, 3,388 patients; urological complications (main reference).
  3. WPATH SOC-8, 2022. International standard for indications, risks and follow-up.
  4. Selvaggi G, Bellringer J. Gender Reassignment Surgery: An Overview. Nat Rev Urol. 2011.
  5. Monstrey S et al., Ghent group. Benchmark series.

Phalloplasty

Grade 2a (systematic reviews).

  1. Wang AMQ et al. Outcomes Following Gender Affirming Phalloplasty. Sex Med Rev. 2022;10(4):499-512.
  2. Hadj-Moussa M et al. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7(1):141-155.
  3. Oles N et al. Ann Surg. 2022;275(1):e67-e74.
  4. Vyas KS et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;146(5):995-1006.
  5. Monstrey S et al., Ghent group.

Masculinizing Mastectomy

Grade 2a (systematic reviews, meta-analyses and a large administrative claims study).

  1. Wilson SC, Morrison SD, Anzai L, et al. Masculinizing Top Surgery: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80(6):679-683.
  2. Bekisz JM, Boyd CJ, Daar DA, Cripps CN, Bluebond-Langner R. Hematoma following gender-affirming mastectomy: A systematic review of the evidence. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75(9):3108-3121.
  3. Zhu J, Wang E, Liu S, Koos J, Shroyer L, Krajewski A. Impact of surgical technique on outcome measures in chest masculinization: A systemic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;87:109-116.
  4. Bustos SS, Kuruoglu D, Yan M, et al. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction in transgender patients undergoing mastectomy with free nipple grafts: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes. Ann Transl Med. 2021.
  5. Phuyal D, Yacoub S, Belardo ZE, Rampazzo A, Bassiri Gharb B. The Impact of Testosterone Supplementation on Surgical Complications in Gender-Affirming Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026;50:4335-4347.
  6. Haley C, Arivoli K, Eisner Z, et al. Complications Following Gender-affirming Mastectomy: An Administrative Claims Analysis of Over 5800 Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, abstract SO20, AAPS 2025.

Breast Augmentation

Grade 2a (registries, multicenter studies, meta-analyses).

  1. Jewell ML et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011. Long-term multicenter follow-up.
  2. ICOBRA. International breast implant registries.
  3. Coroneos CJ et al. US FDA Breast Implant Postapproval Studies. Ann Surg. 2019.
  4. Alderhali R et al. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2026. Meta-analysis by implant plane.
  5. Ørholt M et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020. Breast augmentation by fat grafting.
  6. FDA, Breast Implants Safety Communications. Known risks, including BIA-ALCL.

Gastric Bypass and Sleeve

High grade: randomized trials (Oxford 1b) and meta-analyses (Oxford 1A, high GRADE).

  1. Peterli R et al. SM-BOSS. JAMA. 2018;319(3):255-265. Randomized trial, 5-year follow-up (Oxford 1b).
  2. Salminen P et al. SLEEVEPASS. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(8):656-666. Randomized trial, 10-year follow-up (Oxford 1b).
  3. Arterburn DE et al. JAMA. 2020;324(9):879-887. Evidence-based review.
  4. ASMBS Clinical Practice Guidelines.
  5. IFSO Global Guidelines.
  6. ASMBS/IFSO 2022. SOARD. 2022;18(12):1345-1356. Consensus statement.
  7. Osland EJ et al. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2022;32(4):501-513. Late complications.
  8. Chang SH et al. Obes Rev. 2018. Early major complications.
  9. Monteiro Delgado L et al. Obes Surg. 2025. 9 randomized trials, follow-up ≥ 5 years.

Gastric Band

High grade: systematic reviews (Oxford 1A), moderate to high GRADE depending on the outcome.

  1. Shen X et al. SOARD. 2015;11(4):956-964. 17 studies, 9,706 patients (long-term complications, median 42.7%; reoperations 36.5%; permanent removal 22.9%).
  2. Chang SH et al. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):275-287. 164 studies.
  3. Egberts K et al. Obes Surg. 2011;21(8):1272-1279. Band erosion.
  4. Salminen P et al. SLEEVEPASS 2022. Background to the gradual move away from gastric banding.

Book Your First Consultation

Dr. Sara Vázquez will see you by video call or at our Apodaca center. We reply within twenty-four hours on weekdays.

Book your first consultation

Medical content reviewed by Dr. Jesús Lago · Updated