Faculty Bibliography

Purpose Facial transplantation involves partial or total replacement of neuromuscular and skeletal structures of the face, head, and neck using donor tissues and is among the most extensive facial reconstructive procedures. This case report compares changes in speech production and articulator movement in a 44-year-old man from pretransplant to a 13-month posttransplant period. Method Speech production and articulator movement data were examined at 5 time points, once pretransplant and 4 times posttransplant (4, 7, 10, and 13 months), and compared to 4 healthy controls. A motion capture system was used to track jaw and vertical/horizontal lip movement during nonspeech and speech tasks. Speech intelligibility, jaw displacement, lip aperture, and movement variability were measured. Results Speech intelligibility varied across the study period and was restored to control status by 7 months posttransplant. Jaw displacement and lip aperture in the vertical plane significantly increased over time for nonspeech and speech tasks. Changes in horizontal lip movements over time were minimal. Jaw and lip movement variability fluctuated over time and was greater than the controls by 13 months posttransplant. Discussion Findings quantify changes in articulator movement and contributions to improved speech production following facial transplant. Changes reflect the adaptability of the speech motor system and are discussed in relation to pretransplant speech motor control patterns.

Innovative surgery is defined as a novel procedure, a significant modification of a standard technique, or a new application of an established technique. Although innovation is a crucial part of improving patient care in plastic surgery, there are various ethical considerations and dilemmas in performing unvalidated techniques and procedures, especially for non-life-threatening indications. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding regarding the motivations and ethical considerations of plastic surgeons in their decision to perform innovative operations. An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, online survey was sent to members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and other international plastic surgeons worldwide. The survey asked respondents to rank various factors that influence their decisions to perform innovative plastic surgery, both reconstructive and aesthetic, on a five-point Likert scale. Seven hundred thirty-three of 26,028 plastic surgeons (response rate, 2.9 percent) responded to the survey. Although similar factors were considered to be important for both reconstructive and aesthetic operations, only approximately 50 percent of respondents considered institutional review board approval to be an important factor when considering innovation in both reconstructive (50 percent) and aesthetic surgery (51 percent), suggesting that respondents do not consider innovation a form of research that ought be subject to standard research protections. Overall, the authors' survey suggests that more effort must be extended to ethical training in plastic surgery to create a stronger professional atmosphere regarding innovation and, possibly, to the creation of a more formal group charged with oversight of innovation.

Reconstruction of the nasal lining has traditionally been performed using the folded radial forearm free flap, given its reliable blood supply, pliability, and familiarity to surgeons with respect to its harvest. More recently, the free ulnar forearm flap has been proposed as an alternative reconstructive option for the nasal lining, with safe and reliable outcomes, and improved donor-site morbidity compared with its radial counterpart. In this article, the authors provide educational video footage with accompanying text description of the senior author's (E.D.R) approach to design and elevation of the free ulnar forearm flap for the purpose of reconstructing a composite nasal defect. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.

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.