Faculty Bibliography

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.

Facial transplantation (FT) has attracted the interest of individuals with facial disfigurement as a path to social reintegration. The perception among face transplant recipients and the reconstructive surgery community appears to be that superior functional and esthetic outcomes can be obtained with FT compared to autologous reconstruction (AR). Although lifelong immunosuppression adds well-known risks to FT, its benefits have proven difficult to quantify, especially because of its non-life-saving nature. Evidence that the general public perceives facial allograft recipients as less disfigured than AR patients may dramatically alter the currently accepted risk/benefit ratio of this novel procedure. A survey containing independent images of individuals in nondisfigured (ND), autologous facial reconstruction, and FT groups was administered to the general public in an urban environment. Participants assigned a disfigurement score to each photograph using the Observer-Rated Facial Disfigurement Scale, a validated instrument used to rate facial disfigurement among head and neck cancer patients. One-way analysis of variance was used to calculate differences in mean level of perceived facial disfigurement among the 3 groups. A total of 250 participants completed the survey. Mean perceived disfigurement scores assigned to the ND, FT, and AR groups were 1.2 ± 0.4, 4.9 ± 1.3, and 8.5 ± 0.6, respectively. A significant difference in disfigurement score was observed between all 3 groups (P < 0.001). This pilot study suggests that the general public perceives the esthetic outcome of FT to be superior to those obtained with AR in patients with severe facial defects.

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.