Faculty Bibliography

The aim of facial transplantation (FT) was to enhance quality of life (QoL) for individuals living with severe facial disfigurement. Yet QoL has proved challenging to assess, as the field lacks a unified approach for incorporating FT recipients' perspectives into meaningful QoL measures. In this study, we review FT recipients' self-reported QoL through a qualitative analysis of publicly available posttransplant interviews to identify the aspects of QoL they report as meaningful.

We examine ethical considerations in access to facial transplantation (FT), with implications for promoting health equity. As a form of vascularised composite allotransplantation, FT is still considered innovative with a relatively low volume of procedures performed to date by a small number of active FT programmes worldwide. However, as numbers continue to increase and institutions look to establish new FT programmes, we anticipate that attention will shift from feasibility towards ensuring the benefits of FT are equitably available to those in need. This manuscript assesses barriers to care and their ethical implications across a number of considerations, with the intent of mapping various factors relating to health equity and fair access to FT. Evidence is drawn from an evolving clinical experience as well as published scholarship addressing several dimensions of access to FT. We also explore novel concerns that have yet to be mentioned in the literature.

Facial transplantation (FT) has become a feasible reconstructive solution for patients with devastating facial injuries. Secondary revisions to optimize functional and aesthetic outcomes are to be expected, yet the optimal timing and approach remain to be determined. The purpose of this study was to analyze all facial allograft revisions reported to date, including the senior author's experience with 3 FTs.

BACKGROUND:Since the 1990s, the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation has gained momentum, offering unprecedented solutions for patients with defects not amenable to autologous reconstruction. As with solid organ donation, the vascularized composite allotransplant donor pool remains limited. This systematic review identifies past successes and failures in organ donation campaigns to guide future strategies for expanding vascularized composite allotransplant donation. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase) were searched through July 31, 2019. The study compiled solid organ and vascularized composite allotransplant campaigns that aimed to increase donor registration. Articles depicting the current state of vascularized composite allotransplant donation were also assessed. RESULTS:Of an initial 3318 articles identified, 40 were included. Six articles described direct mail or print interventions, 10 depicted Web-based interventions, 13 dealt with interpersonal interventions, and seven used multimodal interventions. Four articles described the current state of vascularized composite allotransplant donation. A qualitative synthesis was conducted. The authors found that social media campaigns can have a robust but fleeting effect on registration trends and that interpersonal interventions are effective at increasing registration rates. In addition, the opportunity for participants to immediately register as organ donors, by means of either return mail, in-person, or online, is vital to campaign success. CONCLUSIONS:Public organ donation campaigns have had success in increasing organ donor registration rates, particularly through the use of social media and interpersonal interventions that allow for immediate registration. Synthesizing this information, we propose a multimodal campaign to expand the vascularized composite allotransplant donor pool.

Anesthetic considerations are integral to the success of facial transplantation (FT), yet limited evidence exists to guide quality improvement. This study presents an institutional anesthesia protocol, defines reported anesthetic considerations, and provides a comprehensive update to inform future directions of the field.

BACKGROUND:Authors have speculated that vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) recipients may require greater maintenance immunosuppression than solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients due to the higher antigenicity of skin. However, detailed comparisons of VCA and SOT immunosuppression regimens have been limited. METHODS:Hand and face VCA recipient immunosuppression data were collected through a systematic literature review. Kidney recipient data were obtained through a retrospective chart review of the authors' institution. Prednisone and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) doses were compared between VCA and kidney recipients at predefined follow-up intervals (<1, 1-5, and >5 y). Tacrolimus target trough levels (TTTL) were compared at follow-up intervals of 1-5 and >5 y, and stratified into our institution's kidney transplant risk-based target ranges (4-6 ng/mL, 6-8 ng/mL) or higher (>8 ng/mL). RESULTS:Immunosuppression data were available for 57 VCA and 98 kidney recipients. There were no significant differences in prednisone doses between groups at all follow-up intervals. VCA recipient mean MMF dose was significantly greater at <1-y (1.71 ± 0.58 versus 1.16 ± 0.55 gm/d; P = 0.01). For VCA recipients, there was a significant difference (P = 0.02) in TTTL distribution over the three predefined therapeutic ranges (4-6 ng/mL, 6-8 ng/mL, and >8 ng/mL) between 1 and 5 y (24.0%, 20.0%, 56.0%, respectively) and >5 y (28.6%, 42.9%, 28.6%). CONCLUSIONS:At longer follow-up, VCA and kidney recipients receive comparable MMF/prednisone doses, and most VCA recipients are treated with TTTL similar to kidney recipients. Further research may improve our understanding of VCA's complex risk/benefit ratio, and enhance informed consent.