Faculty Bibliography

Technical success has been achieved in several forms of vascularized composite allotransplantation, including hand, face, penis, and lower extremity. However, the risks of lifelong immunosuppression have limited these procedures to a select group of patients for whom nontransplant alternatives have resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes. Recent reports of facial allograft failure, and subsequent reconstruction using autologous tissues, have reinforced the idea that a surgical contingency plan must be in place in case this devastating complication occurs. Interestingly, backup plans in the setting of vascularized composite allotransplantation consist of the nontransplant alternatives that were deemed suboptimal in the first place. Moreover, these options may have been exhausted before transplantation, and may therefore be limited in the case of allograft loss or reamputation. In this article, the authors describe the surgical and nonsurgical alternatives to hand, face, penis, and lower extremity transplantation. In addition, the authors explore the ethical implications of approaching vascularized composite allotransplantation as a "last resort" or as a "high-risk, improved-outcome" procedure, focusing on whether nontransplant options eventually preclude vascularized composite allotransplantation, or whether vascularized composite allotransplantation limits future nontransplant reconstruction.

Promising aesthetic and functional outcomes in facial transplantation have fueled the interest of patients and providers alike. However, there are currently only 11 active face transplant centers in the United States, and only five have accumulated operative experience to date, resulting in an extremely unbalanced geographical distribution of providers. Since face transplant recipients must receive life-long follow-up, this presents unique challenges for face transplant candidates and provider teams, as long-distance travel may add considerable difficulty to pre- and post-transplant care. Furthermore, by compromising follow-up, this burden of travel may impact the ability of experienced face transplant centers to collect data, share knowledge as these patients are followed, and continue to advance the field. This article highlights the unique logistical and ethical implications of the highly probable long-distance nature of face transplant care in the United States, a challenging aspect of management that has not been previously discussed in the literature. Furthermore, we review current strategies in the long-distance management of solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients, and propose several possibilities to help address these challenges in facial transplantation based on SOT experience.

The unique anatomical characteristics of the forearm region make it especially popular as a free flap donor site for craniofacial soft-tissue reconstruction. The free ulnar forearm flap is less hirsute and allows for better concealment of donor site scar as compared with its radial counterpart. Despite these factors, the free radial forearm flap remains more popular among reconstructive surgeons. Through the presented case series, we hope to emphasize the versatile nature of the free ulnar forearm flap in addressing various craniofacial soft-tissue defects. Following institutional review board approval, a retrospective review of the senior authors' clinical experience performing microvascular free ulnar forearm flap reconstruction of craniofacial soft-tissue defects was performed. A total of 10 patients were identified through our review. Soft-tissue defect locations included lower eyelid (n = 2), tongue and floor of mouth (n = 2), lower lip (n = 2), palatopharyngeal area (n = 1), nose (n = 1), and palate (n = 1). Trauma was the most common defect etiology (n = 5), followed by malignancy (n = 4), and iatrogenic injury in 1 case. All patients demonstrated good aesthetic and functional outcomes related to vision, speech, and oral intake at follow-up when applicable. The free ulnar forearm flap is a versatile reconstructive option that can be used to address a wide spectrum of craniofacial soft-tissue defects and offers numerous advantages over its radial counterpart.

: The first facial transplantation in 2005 ushered in a new era in reconstructive surgery, offering new possibilities for the repair of severe disfigurements previously limited by conventional techniques. Advances in allograft design, computerized preoperative planning, surgical technique, and postoperative revisions have helped push the boundaries in this new frontier of vascularized composite allotransplantation. Over the past 12 years, 40 of these procedures have been performed across the world, offering the field the opportunity to reflect on current outcomes. Successes achieved in the brief history of facial transplantation have resulted in a new set of obstacles the field must now overcome. In this review, we aim to highlight the achievements, major challenges, and future directions of this rapidly evolving field.

Face transplantation has evolved over the last 12 years into a safe and feasible reconstructive solution, with good aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients with severe facial defects who are not amenable to reconstruction through conventional and autologous approaches. Among patients who underwent face transplantation to date, a significant proportion did so following trauma, mostly ballistic and thermal injuries. It is therefore important for trauma surgeons who deal with these injuries regularly to be familiar with the literature on face transplantation following traumatic injuries. In this study, we provide a focused review on this topic, with an emphasis on highlighting the limitations of conventional craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, while emphasizing data available on the risks, benefits, surgical indications, contraindications, as well as aesthetic and functional outcomes of face transplantation. The authors also provide an update on all face transplants performed to date including traumatic mechanisms of injury, and extent of defects. They finally describe 2 cases performed by the senior author for patients presenting with devastating facial ballistic and thermal injuries. The authors hope that this work serves as an update for the trauma surgery community regarding the current role and limitations of face transplantation as a craniomaxillofacial reconstructive option for their patient population. This can potentially expedite the reconstructive process for patients who may benefit from face transplantation.