Dataset Information

Enhancing Face Transplant Outcomes: Fundamental Principles of Facial Allograft Revision.

ABSTRACT: Facial transplantation (FT) has become a feasible reconstructive solution for patients with devastating facial injuries. Secondary revisions to optimize functional and aesthetic outcomes are to be expected, yet the optimal timing and approach remain to be determined. The purpose of this study was to analyze all facial allograft revisions reported to date, including the senior author's experience with 3 FTs. Methods:A literature review was performed, with 2 reviewers independently conducting title and abstract screening, followed by a full-text review. All articles mentioning FT revision surgeries were evaluated. The medical records of the senior author's 3 FT recipients were additionally reviewed. Results:Initially, 721 articles were captured and 37 were included in the final analysis. Thirty-two FTs were reported to have involved posttransplant allograft revisions, with FT recipients undergoing a mean of 4.8 ± 4.6 revision procedures. The mean duration between FT and the first revision procedure was 149 ± 179 days. A wide spectrum of revisions was identified and categorized as involving the soft tissues, craniofacial skeleton, dentition, oronasal cavity, salivary glands, facial nerve, or ocular region. In the senior author's experience, when indicated, posttransplant occlusal changes and integrity of the donor-recipient intraoral interface were successfully addressed with secondary procedures without allograft compromise or loss. Conclusions:The worldwide experience shows that secondary procedures are nearly ubiquitous after FT and can be safely performed at various timepoints. The authors thereby establish 5 distinct categories of facial allograft revisions and define 7 critical principles to optimize posttransplant procedures.

SUBMITTER: Diep GK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7489753 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enhancing Face Transplant Outcomes: Fundamental Principles of Facial Allograft Revision.

Diep Gustave K GK Ramly Elie P EP Alfonso Allyson R AR Berman Zoe P ZP Rodriguez Eduardo D ED

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20200817 8

Facial transplantation (FT) has become a feasible reconstructive solution for patients with devastating facial injuries. Secondary revisions to optimize functional and aesthetic outcomes are to be expected, yet the optimal timing and approach remain to be determined. The purpose of this study was to analyze all facial allograft revisions reported to date, including the senior author's experience with 3 FTs.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature review was performed, with 2 reviewers independently conducti ...[more]

PMID: 32983759

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe proportion of living donor kidney transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients is increasing in the US.ObjectiveTo examine the association between donor-recipient biological relationship and allograft survival after living donor kidney transplant.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data on US adult living donor kidney transplants (n = 86 154) performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, excluding cases in which recipients previously received a kidney transplant (n = 10 342) or key data were missing (n = 2832). Last follow-up was March 20, 2020.ExposuresDonor-recipient biological relationship.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was death-censored allograft failure. Univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses were performed for death-censored allograft failure for the overall cohort, then separately for recipients with and without primary diagnoses of cystic kidney disease and for transplants from African American and non-African American donors.ResultsAmong the 72 980 transplant donor and recipients included in the study (median donor age, 41 years; interquartile range [IQR], 32-50 years; 43 990 [60%] female; 50 014 [69%] White), 43 174 (59%) donors and recipients were biologically related and 29 806 (41%) were unrelated. Donors related to their recipients were younger (median [IQR] age, 39 [31-48] vs 44 [35-52] years) and less likely to be female (24 848 [58%] vs 19 142 [64%]) or White (26 933 [62%] vs 23 081 [77%]). Recipients related to their donors were younger (median [IQR] age, 48 [34-58] vs 50 [40-58] years), more likely to be female (18 035 [42%] vs 10 530 [35%]), and less likely to have cystic kidney disease (2530 [6%] vs 4600 [15%]). Related pairs had fewer HLA mismatches overall (median [IQR], 3 [2-3] vs 5 [4-5]). After adjustment for HLA mismatches, donor and recipient characteristics, and transplant era, donor-recipient biological relationship was associated with higher death-censored allograft failure (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .03). When stratified by primary disease, this association persisted only for recipients without cystic kidney disease. When stratified by donor race, this association persisted only for transplants from African American donors.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, living donor kidney transplants from donors biologically related to their recipients had higher rates of allograft failure than transplants from donors unrelated to their recipients after HLA matching was accounted for. Further study is needed to determine which genetic or socioenvironmental factors are associated with this finding.

Project description:ImportanceIn the United States, substantial disparities in access to kidney transplant exist for wait-listed candidates with end-stage renal disease. The implications of transplant centers' willingness to accept kidney offers for access to transplant and mortality outcomes are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the outcomes for wait-listed kidney transplant candidates after the transplant center's refusal of a deceased donor kidney offer.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study obtained data from the United Network for Organ Sharing Potential Transplant Recipient data set on all deceased donor kidney offers in the United States made between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. The final study cohort included adult patients who were wait-listed for kidney transplant and received at least 1 allograft offer during the study period (N?=?280?041). Data analysis was conducted from June 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.ExposureCandidate state of residence.Main outcomes and measuresWaiting list outcome event groups included received deceased donor allograft, received living donor allograft, died while on the waiting list, removed from the waiting list without a transplant, or still on the waiting list at the end of follow-up.ResultsAmong the 280?041 kidney transplant candidates included in the study, the mean (SD) age at wait-listing was 51.1 (13.1) years, and male patients were predominant (171 517 [61.2%]). In this cohort, 81 750 candidates (29.2%) received a deceased donor kidney allograft, 30 870 (11.0%) received a living donor allograft, 25 967 (9.3%) died while on the waiting list, and 59 359 (21.2%) were removed from the waiting list. Overall, 10 candidates with at least 1 previous allograft offer died each day during the study period. Time to first offer was similar for candidates who received deceased donor kidney allograft compared with those who died while waiting (median [interquartile range {IQR}] time, 79 [16-426] days vs 78 [17-401] days, respectively). Deceased donor allograft recipients had a median of 17 offers (IQR, 6-44) over 422 days (IQR, 106-909 days), whereas candidates who died while waiting received a median of 16 offers (IQR, 6-41) over 651 days (IQR, 304-1117 days). Most kidneys (84%) were declined on behalf of at least 1 candidate before being accepted for transplant. As reported by centers, organ or donor quality concerns accounted for 8 416 474 (92.6%) of all declined offers, whereas offers were infrequently refused because of patient-related factors (232 193 [2.6%]), logistical limitations (49 492 [0.5%]), or other concerns. The odds of death after an offer and the median number of offers received prior to death varied considerably by state.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that transplant candidates appeared to receive a large number of viable deceased donor kidney offers that were refused on their behalf by transplant centers, potentially exacerbating the detrimental consequences of the organ shortage; increased transparency in organ allocation process and decisions may improve patient-centered care and access to kidney transplant.

Project description:Many governments have instructed the population to wear simple mouse-and-nose covers or surgical face masks to protect themselves from droplet infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in public. However, the basic protection mechanisms and benefits of these masks remain controversial. Therefore, the aim of this work is to show from a fluid physics point of view under which circumstances these masks can protect against droplet infection. First of all, we show that the masks protect people in the surrounding area quite well, since the flow resistance of the face masks effectively prevents the spread of exhaled air, e.g. when breathing, speaking, singing, coughing and sneezing. Secondly, we provide visual evidence that typical household materials used by the population to make masks do not provide highly efficient protection against respirable particles and droplets with a diameter of 0.3-2 ?m as they pass through the materials largely unfiltered. According to our tests, only vacuum cleaner bags with fine dust filters show a comparable or even better filtering effect than commercial particle filtering FFP2/N95/KN95 half masks. Thirdly, we show that even simple mouse-and-nose covers made of good filter material cannot reliably protect against droplet infection in contaminated ambient air, since most of the air flows through gaps at the edge of the masks. Only a close-fitting, particle-filtering respirator offers good self-protection against droplet infection. Nevertheless, wearing simple homemade or surgical face masks in public is highly recommended if no particle filtrating respiratory mask is available. Firstly, because they protect against habitual contact of the face with the hands and thus serve as self-protection against contact infection. Secondly, because the flow resistance of the masks ensures that the air remains close to the head when breathing, speaking, singing, coughing and sneezing, thus protecting other people if they have sufficient distance from each other. However, if the distance rules cannot be observed and the risk of inhalation-based infection becomes high because many people in the vicinity are infectious and the air exchange rate is small, improved filtration efficiency masks are needed, to take full advantage of the three fundamental protective mechanisms these masks provide.

Dataset Information

Enhancing Face Transplant Outcomes: Fundamental Principles of Facial Allograft Revision.

Publications

Enhancing Face Transplant Outcomes: Fundamental Principles of Facial Allograft Revision.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets