Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Hand transplantation (HT) has emerged as an intervention of last resort for those who endured amputation or irreparable loss of upper extremity function. However, because of the considerable effort required for allograft management and the risks of lifelong immunosuppression, patient eligibility is critical to treatment success. Thus, the objective of this article is to investigate the reported eligibility criteria of HT centers globally. METHODS:A systematic review of the HT literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid/Medline, and Scopus. Program Web sites and clinicaltrials.gov entries were included where available. RESULTS:A total of 354 articles were reviewed, 101 of which met inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 10 patient-facing Web sites and 11 clinical trials were included. The most reported criteria related to the capacity to manage the allograft posttransplantation, including access to follow-up, insurance coverage, psychological stability, and history of medical compliance. Other factors related to the impact of immunosuppression, such as active pregnancy and patient immune status, were less emphasized. CONCLUSIONS:Because of the novelty of the field, eligibility criteria continue to evolve. While there is consensus on certain eligibility factors, other criteria diverge between programs, and very few factors were considered absolute contraindications. As the popularity of the field continues to grow, we encourage the development of consensus evidence-based eligibility criteria.

OBJECTIVE:Rejection is common and pernicious following Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA). Current monitoring and diagnostic modalities include the clinical exam which is subjective and biopsy with dermatohistopathologic Banff grading, which is subjective and invasive. We reviewed literature exploring non- and minimally invasive modalities for diagnosing and monitoring rejection (NIMMs) in VCA. METHODS:PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were queried, 3125 unique articles were reviewed, yielding 26 included studies exploring 17 distinct NIMMs. Broadly, NIMMs involved Imaging, Liquid Biomarkers, Epidermal Sampling, Clinical Grading Scales, and Introduction of Additional Donor Tissue. RESULTS:Serum biomarkers including MMP3 and donor-derived microparticles rose with rejection onset. Epidermal sampling non-invasively enabled measurement of cytokine & gene expression profiles implicated in rejection. Both hold promise for monitoring. Clinical grading scales were useful diagnostically as was reflection confocal microscopy. Introducing additional donor tissue showed promise for preemptively identifying rejection but requires additional allograft tissue burden for the recipient. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:NIMMs have the potential to dramatically improve monitoring and diagnosis in VCA. Many modalities show promise however, additional research is needed and a multimodal algorithmic approach should be explored.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Hysterectomy is a gynecological procedure sometimes performed as part of the gender-affirming process for transgender and gender-expansive patients assigned female at birth. Our goal was to compare surgical outcomes between patients undergoing gender-affirming hysterectomy and patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders. We then explored the implications of gender-affirming hysterectomy for uterine transplantation. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2009 through 2018. We identified patients undergoing hysterectomy in the United States based on Current Procedural Terminology code. We used the International Classification of Diseases 9 or 10 codes to identify patients with benign menstrual disorders (non-gender-affirming group) and gender dysphoria (gender-affirming group). We compared patient characteristics and surgical complications. RESULTS:Of the 40,742 patients that met inclusion criteria, 526 (1.3%) patients were individuals with gender dysphoria. Compared to patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign menstrual disorders, gender-affirming patients were younger, were healthier, had a lower prevalence of diabetes, and were more likely to undergo surgery in the outpatient setting, with shorter time to discharge. Complication rates were similar between groups. Logistic regression controlling for the American Society of Anesthesiology classification determined the difference of return to the operating room was not statistically significant (OR 1.082; 95% CI, 0.56-2.10; p = 0.816). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Gender-affirming hysterectomy has a safety profile similar to hysterectomy performed for benign menstrual disorders. Researchers should further explore the possibility of uterus donation among these patients as they may be suitable candidates.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:In properly selected patients, combined face and whole eye transplantation (FWET) may offer a more optimal aesthetic and potentially functional outcome while avoiding the complications and stigma of enucleation and prosthetics. This study presents the most comprehensive cadaveric assessment for FWET to date, including rehearsal allograft procurement on a brain-dead donor. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Over a 2-year period, 15 rehearsal dissections were performed on 21 cadavers and one brain-dead donor. After identification of a potential recipient, rehearsals assessed clinical feasibility and enabled operative planning, technical practice, refinement of personalized equipment, and improved communication among team members. Operative techniques are described. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Facial allograft procurement closely followed previously described face transplant techniques. Ophthalmic to superficial temporal (O-ST) vessel anastomosis for globe survival was assessed. Craniectomy allowed for maximal optic nerve and ophthalmic vessel pedicle length. Appropriate pedicle length and vessel caliber for O-ST anastomosis was seen. Research procurement demonstrated collateral blood flow to the orbit and surrounding structures from the external carotid system as well as confirmed the feasibility of timely O-ST anastomosis. Personalized cutting guides enabled highly accurate bony inset. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This study formalizes an approach to FWET, which is feasible for clinical translation in judiciously selected patients. O-ST anastomosis seems to minimize retinal ischemia time and allow perfusion of the combined allograft on a single external carotid pedicle. Although restoration of vision likely remains out of reach, globe survival is possible.

Precise nasofacial analysis ahead of rhinoplasty surgery is imperative. Features common to the Caucasian masculine nose are reviewed in a stepwise fashion and contrasted to the Caucasian feminine nose. A solid understanding of the cis-male, masculine nose enables the plastic surgeon to determine the changes required for a successful facial feminizing rhinoplasty, as a part of facial gender confirmation.

BACKGROUND:Malar augmentation is a key procedure sought out by transfeminine individuals seeking to feminize their facial appearance. Different surgical techniques have been described in the literature including fat transfer to the cheeks and malar implant placement. Because of the paucity of information in the literature, there is no consensus on best practices for this procedure. The objective of our study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of malar implants as compared with fat transfer to the cheeks in transfeminine individuals. METHODS:We examined all patients with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria that were referred to the senior author seeking consultation for feminizing facial procedures between June 2017 and August 2022. Patients who underwent fat transfer to the cheeks or malar implant placement were included in our study. We reviewed the electronic medical record of each patient, and we retrieved and analyzed data regarding demographics, medical and surgical history, operative dictations, clinic notes, and postoperative follow-up. Univariate analysis was used to assess for differences in postoperative complications between these 2 groups. RESULTS:We identified 231 patients underwent feminizing facial gender affirming surgery, with 152 patients receiving malar augmentation through malar implants or fat grafting. One hundred twenty-nine patients (84.9%) underwent malar implant placement and 23 (15.1%) underwent fat grafting to the cheeks. The mean follow-up time was 3.6 ± 2.7 months. Patient satisfaction was greater in the malar implant group (126/129, 97.7%) compared with the fat transfer group (20/23, 87%, P < 0.045). Two patients who received implants (1.8%) experienced postoperative complications. No patient undergoing fat transfer experiences similar adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the contention that malar implants are a safe alternative for malar augmentation among transfeminine individuals. While autologous fat transfer to the cheek is an indispensable option in patients requiring minor malar enhancement, malar implants offer a more permanent option with a better aesthetic outcome in patients requiring major malar enhancement. To minimize postoperative complications, surgeons should emphasize patient compliance with postoperative directions.