Lee Z-Hye, Lopez Christopher D, Plana Natalie M, Caplan Arthur L, Rodriguez Eduardo D
Hansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, N.Y.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, N.Y.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019 May 16;7(5):e2055. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002055. eCollection 2019 May.
Facial transplantation (FT) experience has grown but success in this innovative and complex field has yet to be defined. The purpose of this study is to determine attitudes regarding the failures in FT and the appropriate management of these failures.
An anonymous, 20-question survey elicited opinions regarding FT failure management. This survey was administered to attendees of 2 FT-focused national meetings. Demographics included sex, age, and personal/institutional FT experience. Attitudes related to FT recipient education, definition of FT failure, and management of complications were gathered.
Eighty of 271 attendees completed the survey (29.5%). Respondents were predominantly male (81.3%) and 50 years of age or younger (80.5%). Thirty-eight percentage previously performed an FT and 53.8% were a part of an institution with a vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA)-related Institutional Review Board (IRB). Respondents almost unanimously agreed it was "absolutely essential" to discuss possibility of FT failure (93.8%), mortality (91.1%), and treatment for chronic rejection (78.8%). However, uncertainty of failure rate existed, with 56.4% citing failure rate as unknown, 25.6% citing <25% and 18.0% citing >25%. 51.2% of those with direct FT experience lacked clear criteria for defining FT success or an institutional protocol for managing chronic rejection. 78.8% believed failed FT patients should be considered for retransplantation, but only about 25% cited functional concerns or esthetic dissatisfaction as appropriate indications.
There is a lack of consensus regarding definition of FT failure and rates mortality amongst experts. Even institutions with FT experience lack protocols for managing chronic rejection. Expert consensus and institutional regulations surrounding these issues are warranted.
面部移植(FT)的经验不断积累,但在这个创新且复杂的领域中,成功的标准尚未明确。本研究的目的是确定对面部移植失败的态度以及对这些失败的恰当处理方式。
一项包含20个问题的匿名调查收集了关于面部移植失败处理的意见。该调查针对两场以面部移植为重点的全国性会议的参会者进行。人口统计学信息包括性别、年龄以及个人/机构的面部移植经验。收集了与面部移植受者教育、面部移植失败的定义以及并发症处理相关的态度。
271名参会者中有80人完成了调查(29.5%)。受访者以男性为主(81.3%),年龄在50岁及以下(80.5%)。38%的人之前进行过面部移植,53.8%的人所在机构设有与血管化复合异体移植(VCA)相关的机构审查委员会(IRB)。受访者几乎一致认为讨论面部移植失败的可能性(93.8%)、死亡率(91.1%)以及慢性排斥反应的治疗(78.8%)“绝对必要”。然而,失败率存在不确定性,56.4%的人表示失败率未知,25.6%的人认为低于25%,18.0%的人认为高于25%。51.2%有直接面部移植经验的人缺乏明确的面部移植成功定义标准或处理慢性排斥反应的机构方案。78.8%的人认为面部移植失败的患者应考虑再次移植,但只有约25%的人将功能问题或美学不满意视为合适的指征。
专家们对面部移植失败的定义和死亡率缺乏共识。即使是有面部移植经验的机构也缺乏处理慢性排斥反应的方案。围绕这些问题的专家共识和机构规范是必要的。