No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundRecipient selection is an important determinant of surgical outcomes in facial transplantation (FT). Appropriately, each FT program develops their own guidelines for recipient selection criteria. Currently, there is no resource to simultaneously assess and identify similarities and differences between these guidelines. Such information could be useful in distinguishing areas of FT that are well understood from those that could benefit from further exploration.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the scientific literature from inception to June 18, 2021, using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify articles pertaining to recipient selection criteria. Clinical trials were identified through the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. United States and international program websites were reviewed for patient-facing information.ResultsOur systematic review yielded 90 suitable articles, 8 clinical trials, and 7 program websites containing the recipient selection criteria of 24 different FT programs. The most reported on recipient criteria were age, positive human immunodeficiency viral status (HIV+), positive hepatitis C viral status, psychosocial stability, and medical compliance. Other criteria were rarely addressed, such as blindness and recipient immune status.ConclusionsGuidelines among different face transplant programs are changing over time. We found consensus on certain recipient selection criteria, but the majority remain program or surgeon dependent, emphasizing that FT is still an evolving procedure. Although most programs reported on their recipient selection criteria, the rationale was often missing. Further discussion about recipient selection criteria and the reasoning behind employing or changing them will help advance the field.

Background: There are over 43 million individuals in the world who are blind. As retinal ganglion cells are incapable of regeneration, treatment modalities for this condition are limited. Since first incepted in 1885, whole-eye transplantation (WET) has been proposed as the ultimate cure for blindness. As the field evolves, different aspects of the surgery have been individually explored, including allograft viability, retinal survival, and optic nerve regeneration. Due to the paucity in the WET literature, we aimed to systematically review proposed WET surgical techniques to assess surgical feasibility. Additionally, we hope to identify barriers to future clinical application and potential ethical concerns that could be raised with surgery. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception to June 10, 2022, to identify articles pertaining to WET. Data collection included model organisms studied, surgical techniques utilized, and postoperative functional outcomes. Results: Our results yielded 33 articles, including 14 mammalian and 19 cold-blooded models. In studies performing microvascular anastomosis in mammals, 96% of allografts survived after surgery. With nervous coaptation, 82.9% of retinas had positive electroretinogram signals after surgery, indicating functional retinal cells after transplantation. Results on optic nerve function were inconclusive. Ocular-motor functionality was rarely addressed. Conclusions: Regarding allograft survival, WET appears feasible with no complications to the recipient recorded in previous literature. Functional restoration is potentially achievable with a demonstrated positive retinal survival in live models. Nevertheless, the potential of optic nerve regeneration remains undetermined.

No abstract

Background: No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs. Methods: The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database. Results: Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%