Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:As of July of 2013, 27 facial vascularized composite allotransplantations have been performed. The authors developed a classification system and treatment algorithm that is practical and surgically applicable. METHODS:The majority of the transplants have been described in the surgical literature and the media, and a review of the data was performed. A classification system and a treatment algorithm were designed. Skeletal defects were defined by craniofacial osteotomies and soft-tissue defects by aesthetic facial subunits. The soft-tissue defect was subdivided into the following subunits: oral-nasal (type 1), oronasal-orbital (type 2), and full facial (type 3). The bony defects were subdivided into mandibular involvement (M), Le Fort 1 (A), Le Fort 3 (B), and monobloc (C). RESULTS:The mechanisms of injury included trauma (n = 13), burns (n = 8), congenital deformity (n = 3), oncologic resection (n = 1), and unreported (n = 2). According to the proposed classification system: one was type 1; one was type 1-M; one was type 1-MB; two were type 2; two were type 2-B; two were type 2-MB; six were type 3; one was type 3-B; and three were type 3-MB; eight could not be classified due to a lack of data. The treatment algorithm designed a vascularized composite allotransplantation that addressed the bony and soft-tissue components. CONCLUSIONS:Patient selection for these complicated procedures, currently dependent on lifelong immunosuppression, is crucial to their success. The authors describe a classification system and treatment algorithm for facial defects that may be ideally suited for facial transplantation. The proposed classification and algorithm may help centers define indications and ideally improve patient outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, V.

Facial fractures resulting from blunt-mechanism trauma, although common, have been infrequently evaluated in large studies that do not include confirmation of fractures based on author review of available patient radiographic studies. An 8-year review (1998-2006) of the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Registry was performed with institutional review board approval. Patients diagnosed with blunt-mechanism facial fractures were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and their facial fractures confirmed by author review of computed tomographic scans. Individual fractures were classified and grouped according to the facial thirds. Intra- and interreader variability was calculated, and confirmed fracture patterns were compared to fracture patterns listed by ICD-9 codes. Concomitant injuries and demographic data were additionally evaluated. Four thousand three hundred ninety-eight patients with 8127 fractures were identified. Intra- and interreader variability was 2% and 7%, respectively. ICD-9 coding misdiagnosed 12.5% of all fractures. Eighty-two percent of patients sustained associated injuries, including basilar skull fractures (7.6%) and cervical spine fractures (6.6%). 1.1% had at least one fracture in each facial third (panfacial fracture pattern). Significant relationships were found between demographic parameters, concomitant injuries, specific fractures, and fracture patterns. Studies investigating facial fractures should report fracture patterns confirmed by author review of available radiographic imaging. Large retrospective data sets containing confirmed fractures and capable of addressing rare fracture patterns can be compiled with low inter- and intrauser variability, and are useful for generating mechanistic hypotheses suitable for evaluation in prospective series or by directed biomechanical studies.

Since the first facial transplantation in 2005, 28 have been done worldwide with encouraging immunological, functional, psychological, and aesthetic outcomes. Unlike solid organ transplantation, which is potentially life-saving, facial transplantation is life-changing. This difference has generated ethical concerns about the exposure of otherwise young and healthy individuals to the sequelae of lifelong, high-dose, multidrug immunosuppression. Nevertheless, advances in immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive protocols, microsurgical techniques, and computer-aided surgical planning have enabled broader clinical application of this procedure to patients. Although episodes of acute skin rejection continue to pose a serious threat to face transplant recipients, all cases have been controlled with conventional immunosuppressive regimens, and no cases of chronic rejection have been reported.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation has earned its place at the top of the reconstructive ladder. However, as in free tissue transfer, postoperative revisions are necessary to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic results. Although revising a facial vascularized composite allotransplantation may potentially risk the integrity of the graft, the authors believe that the advantages of appropriately chosen revisions may provide great benefit. METHODS: Following the most extensive face transplant performed to date, revisions were performed in two surgical procedures. The first included a Le Fort III osteotomy for malocclusion correction, midface tissue resuspension and coronal eyebrow lift to correct soft-tissue ptosis, and submental lipectomy. Bilateral blepharoplasty to minimize tissue excess and scar revision were performed at a subsequent operation. Cephalometric analysis and angiography were performed and blink data collected. RESULTS: Before transplantation, the patient was in class III malocclusion. After transplantation, class I occlusion was obtained; however, the patient subsequently returned to class III occlusion. After skeletal revision, class I occlusion was obtained; however, a corneal blink deficit was noted. Eight months after skeletal revision, blink had improved spontaneously. Angiography revealed collateralization providing retrograde flow from the flap to the recipient. CONCLUSIONS: Although the necessity for revisions is clear, determining which revisions to safely perform and their timing and execution have not been explored. The authors address four distinct categories of revisions, including soft-tissue revision, hard-tissue mismatch, and craniofacial skeleton and dental occlusion. The authors illustrate the success of these revisions and assess their advantages, disadvantages, and relative risk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

BACKGROUND: Vascularized composite tissue allotransplant recipients are often highly sensitized to human leukocyte antigens because of multiple prior blood transfusions and other reconstructive operations. The use of peripheral blood obtained from dead donors for crossmatching may be insufficient because of life support measures taken for the donor before donation. No study has been published investigating human leukocyte antigen matching practices in this field. METHODS: A survey addressing human leukocyte antigen crossmatching methods was generated and sent to 22 vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation centers with active protocols worldwide. Results were compiled by center and compared using two-tailed t tests. RESULTS: Twenty of 22 centers (91 percent) responded to the survey. Peripheral blood was the most commonly reported donor sample for vascularized composite tissue allotransplant crossmatching [78 percent of centers (n=14)], with only 22 percent (n=4) using lymph nodes. However, 56 percent of the 18 centers (n=10) that had performed vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation reported that they harvested lymph nodes for crossmatching. Of responding individuals, 62.5 percent (10 of 16 individuals) felt that lymph nodes were the best donor sample for crossmatching. CONCLUSIONS: A slight majority of vascularized composite tissue allotransplant centers that have performed clinical transplants have used lymph nodes for human leukocyte antigen matching, and centers appear to be divided on the utility of lymph node harvest. The use of lymph nodes may offer a number of potential benefits. This study highlights the need for institutional review board-approved crossmatching protocols specific to vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation, and the need for global databases for sharing of vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation experiences.

The concept that epinephrine-based local anesthetics cannot be injected in terminal appendages has been perpetuated for decades. The hypothesis that the vasoconstrictive effect of epinephrine will result in finger necrosis has been accepted as fact, often preventing its use in hand surgery. To scientifically challenge this hypothesis, a systematic review of the literature was performed, and a survey of ASPS members reported to highlight the lack of evidence-based opinions. A systematic literature review performed using Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases identified all published studies evaluating use of epinephrine/adrenaline in hand, finger or digit surgery. Each study was independently evaluated by three reviewers for inclusion or exclusion from the systematic review. Additionally, a survey (E-survey link) was distributed to all ASPS members and data were collected over a 5-month period through SurveyMonkey®. A total of 568 articles published prior to December 2012 were identified. After elimination of 151 duplicates, 417 articles remained. Fifty-five articles were selected and full examination of the texts was performed. Forty-five studies matched the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. The ASPS member survey demonstrated a 13 % overall questionnaire response rate (5,299 questionnaires/687 responses). Of all respondents, 37.4 % felt it was unsafe to inject local anesthesia mixed with epinephrine into the fingers/thumb, respectively. Critical literature review validated the safety and efficacy of utilizing epinephrine-based local anesthetics. The author's survey elucidates the pervasive concern of employing epinephrine in hand surgery. Level of Evidence: Not ratable.

PURPOSE: Currently, nearly 1 in 5 Americans is at least 60 years of age. Bone atrophy, decreased capacity for tissue repair, and chronic disease are known to influence fracture patterns and operative algorithms in this age group. This study presents craniofacial trauma injury patterns and treatment in an elderly population at a major urban trauma center. METHODS: Patient records were retrospectively reviewed from February 1998 through December 2010. Patients at least 60 years of age who met the inclusion criteria for craniofacial fractures identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code review and confirmed by author review of available computed tomograms were studied. Demographic information, fracture type, concomitant injuries, and management were recorded. RESULTS: Of 11,084 patients presenting with facial fracture, 1,047 were older than 60 years. The most common mechanism of injury was falls (50%), and most patients were men (59%). Commonly fractured areas included the nose (n = 452, 43%), maxilla (316, 30%), zygoma (312, 30%), orbital floor (280, 27%), and mandible (186, 18%), with 51 patients (5%) having a concomitant basilar skull fracture. Inpatient mortality and length of stay were significantly increased compared with the nongeriatric population (P < .01), although only 5% of all fractures were treated operatively. CONCLUSIONS: Fractures in the elderly tend to be minimally displaced midfacial fractures that do not warrant surgical intervention. Despite conservative management, the elderly are hospitalized longer than their younger counterparts, have increased critical care needs, and have higher mortality. These data support national medical preparedness in anticipating the craniofacial trauma needs of the aging US population and can be used to update treatment algorithms for these patients.

Use of the ulnar forearm flap (UFF) is limited by concerns for ulnar nerve injury and impaired perfusion in the donor extremity. Twenty UFFs were performed over a 6-year period. All patients underwent postoperative bilateral upper extremity arterial duplex studies. A subset of postoperative patients (n = 10) also had bilateral upper extremity sensory and motor evaluations, and functional evaluation via the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH). Motor function was tested by digital and key grip dynamometry. Ulnar nerve sensation was tested by evaluation of one- and two-point perceived pressure thresholds and two-point discrimination using the Pressure-Specified Sensory Device (Sensory Management Services, LLC, Baltimore, MD). All UFFs were viable postoperatively. Mean follow-up was 28.8 months for vascular studies and 45.3 months for motor, sensory, and QuickDASH evaluations. Although mid and distal radial artery flow velocities were significantly higher in donor versus control extremities evaluated at less than 1 year postoperatively, there was no significant difference in extremities evaluated at later time points. Digital pressures, grip strength, key pinch strength, and ulnar sensation were equivalent between donor and control extremities. The mean QuickDASH score was 17.4 +/- 23.8. The UFF can be harvested reliably and long-term follow-up shows no evidence of impaired vascular, motor, or sensory function in the donor extremity.