Summary 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.

No abstract

Background: Facial feminization surgery (FFS) plays an instrumental role in the process of gender affirmation. These procedures are becoming increasingly appreciated for their ability to improve patient satisfaction and gender identity in a way that alleviates gender dysphoria and improves the quality of life. Despite the recent surge in popularity across the US, the current literature lacks evidence on the safety profile of combined facial feminization procedures. Our goal was to determine the safety profile of facial feminization procedures registered on a national surgical database. Methods: Patients with a primary diagnosis of gender dysphoria undergoing facial surgical procedures were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between the years 2013 and 2018. Demographic characteristics along with 30-day postoperative complications were recorded. Logistic regression models adjusted for confounders were used to determine the independent predictors of postoperative complications. Results: A cohort of 77 patients who underwent a total of 220 procedures was identified. The number of patients undergoing surgery per year increased from three (3.9%) in 2013 to 41 (53.2%) in 2018, a 13.6-fold increase. The most commonly performed procedure was forehead contouring/frontal sinus setback, performed on 52 patients (67.5%), followed by orbital contouring (n ¼ 37, 48%), rhinoplasty (n ¼ 34, 44%), mandibuloplasty (n ¼ 34, 44%), chondrolaryngoplasty (n ¼ 27, 35.1%), genioplasty (n ¼ 11, 14%), brow lift (n ¼ 9, 11.7%), cheek augmentation (n ¼ 9, 11.7%), and lip lift (n ¼ 7, 9.1%). The number of patients who underwent 5 or more procedures in a single anesthetic event was 41 (53.2%). The complication rate was 3.9%. Univariate analysis suggested an association between older age and postoperative morbidity (P < 0.02). However, this was not found to be an independent predictor on multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders (P < 0.083). Additionally, an increase in operative time and the number of procedures performed during a single anesthetic were not independent predictors of 30day postoperative complications (P < 0.317 and P < 0.19, respectively).Conclusions: FFS can be safely performed and has a low risk of postoperative morbidity. The number of patients seeking FFS surgery has risen exponentially, with the highest demand seen for the reconstruction of the upper facial third. These findings should guide expectations for patients seeking FFS, as well as for plastic surgeons looking to perform multiple procedures per anesthetic event.

Background: Facial feminization surgery is composed of a variety of craniomaxillofacial surgical procedures that are increasingly sought after by male-to-female transgender patients and by those seeking feminization of the face. Facial feminization surgery can play a prominent role in alleviating gender dysphoria. In consideration of an observed increase in gender-affirming procedures performed in recent years, a broad knowledge base in the techniques, outcomes, and challenges of facial feminization surgery should be established by surgeons offering these procedures. Our review was designed to critically appraise the current literature and inform future advancements in gender-affirming surgical practice. In addition, we detail a representative case to illustrate the senior author's approach to full facial feminization. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted for studies published through June 2020 using following the search terms: "Face" OR "facial" OR "craniofacial" AND "Feminization" OR "Feminization Surgery" OR "Gender Reassignment" OR "Gender Affirming Surgery" OR "Gender Confirmation Surgery." Data on procedures, outcomes, patient age, follow-up time, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected. The data were categorized by facial thirds and then further stratified by facial feature. Results: Our search yielded 388 articles. Thirty articles fit our inclusion criteria, and of these, 23 articles were included in the review. We extracted primary data pertaining to 3554 patients with an age range of 18 to 73 who underwent 8506 total procedures. Most of the procedures addressed the upper facial third (hairline, forehead, and brow), comprising 49.1% of total procedures performed. Further categorization by facial feature revealed that the most commonly addressed feature was the forehead (34.6% of procedures), followed by the nose (12.8%) and the chin (12.2%). In studies that used quantitative measures to gauge patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction was high. Conclusions: Facial feminization surgery seems to be safe, whether it is conducted in a single stage or as a staged procedure. Patients report high satisfaction and better gender congruency after facial feminization procedures. Further research is needed to establish best surgical practice and gauge patient satisfaction beyond the length of average follow-up and determine the frequency with which adjunctive procedures are sought out.

Background:The demand for facial feminization surgery (FFS) amongst transgender women is on the rise, and requests for a singlestage full FFS (F-FFS) are becoming more frequent. The specific aim of this article is to present our institutional experience with both partial-FFS (P-FFS) and F-FFS with a specific emphasis on safety of each approach. Methods: We examined the electronic medical record of all patients with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria that were referred to the senior author for FFS consultation at our institution, between June 2017 and October 2020. Patients were sub-grouped into those who underwent F-FFS (upper, middle, and lower facial thirds in a single anesthetic event) and those who underwent P-FFS. Univariate analysis was used to assess for difference in postoperative complications. Results: We identified 77 patients who underwent 382 total procedures. The mean follow-up time was 7.5 months (Sd ¼ 7.3) (interquartile range 1.75-12.0 months). Fifty-one (71.4%) patients underwent F-FFS and 21 (28.6%) patients underwent P-FFS. Compared to P-FFS, F-FFS was not associated with an increase in postoperative complication (1 out of 21 [4.8%] versus 4 out of 51 [7.8%]) ( P < 0.556). When comparing characteristics of patients with postoperative complications to patients with no postoperative complications, the average body mass index was significantly higher (30.9 versus 25.4, respectively). ( P < 0.029). Conclusions: Full-FFS is a set of procedures that has gained increased popularity among male-to-female transgender patients. Our results support the understanding that F-FFS is a safe and reliable approach, which may be preferable to patients and providers alike.

Background: 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. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases to identify the reported functional outcome measurement tools used in the free muscle flap-based reanimation literature. Results: The search yielded 219 articles, 43 of which met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We noted an increase in publications reporting the utilization of objective measures over time, particularly software-based tools, as well as increased utilization of patient reported outcomes measures. Conclusions: Based on the trends identified in the literature, we suggest standardization of outcome measures following facial reanimation surgery with free muscle-flap using a combination of the Facial Assessment by Computer Evaluation (FACEgram) software and the Facial Clinimetric Evaluation (FaCE) Scale.

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.

Venous congestion accounts for most microvascular free tissue flaps failures. Given the lack of consensus on the use of single versus dual venous outflow, the authors present our institutional experience with 1 versus 2 vein anastomoses in microvascular free flap for head and neck reconstruction. A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients undergoing free flaps for head and neck reconstruction at our institution between 2008 and 2020. The authors included patients who underwent anterolateral thigh, radial forearm free flap, or fibula free flaps. The authors classified patients based on the number of venous anastomoses used and compared complication rates. A total of 279 patients with a mean age of 55.11 years (standard deviation 19.31) were included. One hundred sixty-eight patients (60.2%) underwent fibula free flaps, 59 (21.1%) anterolateral thigh, and 52 (18.6%) radial forearm free flap. The majority of patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists classification III or higher (N ¼ 158, 56.6%) and had history of radiation (N ¼ 156, 55.9%). Most flaps were performed using a single venous anastomosis (83.8%). Univariate analysis of postoperative outcomes demonstrated no significant differences in overall complications (P ¼ 0.788), flap failure (P ¼ 1.0), return to the Operating Room (OR) (P ¼ 1.0), hematoma (P ¼ 0.225), length of hospital stay (P ¼ 0.725), or venous congestion (P ¼ 0.479). In our cohort, the rate of venous congestion was not statistically different between flaps with 1 and 2 venous anastomoses. Decision to perform a second venous anastomoses should be guided by anatomical location, vessel lie, flap size, and intraoperative visual assessment.