Faculty Bibliography

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Appreciate the evolution and increasing complexity of transplanted facial allografts over the past two decades. 2. Discuss indications and contraindications for facial transplantation, and donor and recipient selection criteria and considerations. 3. Discuss logistical, immunologic, and cost considerations in facial transplantation, in addition to emerging technologies used. 4. Understand surgical approaches and anatomical and technical nuances of the procedure. 5. Describe aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial outcomes of facial transplantation reported to date. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:This CME article highlights principles and evolving concepts in facial transplantation. The field has witnessed significant advances over the past two decades, with more than 40 face transplants reported to date. The procedure now occupies the highest rung on the reconstructive ladder for patients with extensive facial disfigurement who are not amenable to autologous reconstructive approaches, in pursuit of optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes. Indications, contraindications, and donor and recipient considerations for the procedure are discussed. The authors also review logistical, immunologic, and cost considerations of facial transplantation. Surgical approaches to allograft procurement and transplantation, in addition to technical and anatomical nuances of the procedure, are provided. Finally, the authors review aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial outcomes that have been reported to date.

Over the past 15 years, landmark achievements have established facial transplantation (FT) as a feasible reconstructive option for otherwise irreparable craniofacial defects. However, as the field matures and long-term outcomes begin to emerge, FT teams around the world are now facing new challenges. Data for this review were identified by searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE database from inception through August 2020. All English-language articles pertaining to FT were included. Significant advances in candidate selection, technology, operative technique, posttransplant care, and immunosuppressive management have contributed to the tremendous expansion of the field, culminating in the execution in the past 3 years of 2 facial re-transplantations, and most recently the world's first successful combined face and double hand transplant in August 2020. Despite these achievements, the allograft donor pool remains limited, with long wait times, requiring surgical experimentation with cross-sex FT. Immunosuppressive management has improved, but significant adverse events continue to be reported. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on the healthcare system, with various implications for the practice of reconstructive transplantation. In this article, we provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date FT review, highlighting fundamental lessons learned and recent advancements, while looking toward the challenges ahead. Over the past 15 years, extensive multidisciplinary efforts have been instrumental to the establishment of FT as a feasible reconstructive option. As novel challenges are beginning to emerge, continued collaborative and multispecialty research efforts are needed to further this field.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:This study evaluates skeletal and dental outcomes of LeFort I advancement surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) with varying degrees of maxillary skeletal hypoplasia. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective study. METHOD/UNASSIGNED:: ≤-10 mm. PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Fifty-one patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla who met inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE/UNASSIGNED:Skeletal and dental stability post-LeFort I surgery at a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:At T2, LeFort I surgery produced an average correction of maxillary hypoplasia by 6.4 ± 0.6, 8.1 ± 0.4, and 10.7 ± 0.8 mm in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. There was a mean relapse of 1 to 1.5 mm observed in all groups. At T3, no statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical groups and controls at angle Sella, Nasion, A point (SNA), A point, Nasion, B point (ANB), and overjet outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement produces a stable correction in mild, moderate, and severe skeletal maxillary hypoplasia. Overcorrection is recommended in all patients with CLP to compensate for the expected postsurgical skeletal relapse.

Chronic facial paralysis can lead to significant functional and psychosocial impairment. Treatment often involves free muscle flap-based facial reanimation surgery. Although surgical techniques have advanced considerably over the years, consensus has yet to be reached for postoperative outcome evaluation. To facilitate outcome comparison between the various techniques for free muscle-flap-based reanimation, a standardized, widely accepted functional outcomes assessment tool must be adopted.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration has been shown to be beneficial when we have complex problems and highly specialized groups, such as in head and neck reconstruction. Otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and oral maxillofacial surgeons perform head and neck reconstruction research. While the specialties represent unique backgrounds, the degree of interdisciplinary collaboration and subtopic focus is unknown. We sought to describe the frequency of interinstitutional interdisciplinary collaboration and examine the association of specialty with research subtopics. METHODS: Oral presentations from 2014 to 2018 focused on head and neck reconstruction or associated principles at the main reconstructive academic meetings in otolaryngology (American Head and Neck Society), plastic surgery (American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery), and oral maxillofacial surgery (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) were reviewed. Author specialty and institution data were recorded. All abstracts were assigned a research subtopic, chosen based on identified themes. Subtopic frequencies among the specialties were compared. RESULTS: Thirteen of 88 (15%) US institutions participate in interdisciplinary collaboration in head and neck reconstruction research. Of the remaining institutions, 23 (31%) have researchers performing parallel work and not collaborating. Certain research subtopics were more often presented by each specialty, representing differing interests. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration among head and neck reconstruction research at the US institutions is low compared with the potential. Specialties focus on different research subtopics, and therefore can benefit from working together.

BACKGROUND:Cross-sex vascularized composite allotransplantation has been performed in cadaveric facial transplantation and clinical extremity transplantation. Understanding the challenge of appropriate donor-recipient matching, this study sought to characterize the public's perception of cross-sex vascularized composite allotransplantation. METHODS:Participants were surveyed in New York City. Data collected included demographics and willingness to donate vascularized composite allografts (VCAs) of various types. Similar questions were asked in the context of same-sex and cross-sex donation. RESULTS:A total of 101 participants (male: 56.4%; age ≤35 years: 62.4%) were surveyed. The majority expressed willingness to donate to recipients of a different sex (hand: 78.2%, face: 56.4%, penis or uterus: 69.3%, lower limb: 81.2%, abdominal wall: 80.2%, larynx: 81.2%, and solid organs: 85.2%). Among VCAs, willingness to donate facial allografts was significantly different in same-sex versus cross-sex contexts (64.4% vs 56.4%; P = 0.008). Participants were also significantly more likely to donate VCAs to same-sex recipients on behalf of themselves versus loved ones (P < 0.05). There was significantly lower willingness to receive cross-sex versus same-sex facial (P = 0.022) and genital allografts (P = 0.022). Education on the preservation of recipient masculinity or femininity in cross-sex facial transplantation increased participants' willingness to receive a cross-sex face transplant from 56.4% to 71.3% (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights the urban public's acceptance of VCA donation or reception regardless of sex mismatch. There is increased willingness to receive a cross-sex face transplant after education, highlighting opportunities for future focused interventions to increase public awareness and ultimately the donor pool.

BACKGROUND:Skin color matching is an essential factor in achieving optimal aesthetic outcome in partial facial transplantation. However, there is no published literature evaluating the success of color matching to date. Furthermore, a medical professional's perception of an optimal color match may not necessarily translate to that of the general public. The purpose of our study was to evaluate skin color matching between the donor allograft and recipient native tissue in partial facial transplantations to determine the level of success perceived by the general public and medical professionals. METHODS:Published photographs of partial face transplant recipients were used to create a survey where recipient native and donor allograft skin samples were juxtaposed. Thirty-three members of the general public and 30 medical professionals were asked to rate skin color match on a scale from "excellent match" to "not a match." RESULTS:Overall, 47% of given ratings were positive, indicating an "excellent" or "good match," and 53% of ratings were negative, indicating a "poor match" or "lack of match" between the skin sample pairings shown. Of the 19 partial face transplant patients who were rated, 9 patients received >50% positive ratings, and 10 patients received <50% positive ratings. Medical professionals consistently gave more positive ratings, with statistically significant differences in 7 of the 19 rated patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that there is need for improvement in color matching in partial facial transplantation, and that the general public is more critical of skin color matching compared to medical professionals.