Advances in microsurgical techniques and immunomodulatory protocols have contributed to the expansion of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) with very encouraging immunological, functional, and cosmetic results. Rejection remains however a major hurdle that portends serious threats to recipients. Rejection features in VCA have been described in a number of studies, and an international consensus on the classification of rejection was established. Unfortunately, current available diagnostic methods carry many shortcomings that, in certain cases, pose a great diagnostic challenge to physicians especially in borderline rejection cases. In this review, we revisit the features of acute skin rejection in hand and face transplantation at the clinical, cellular, and molecular levels. The multiple challenges in diagnosing rejection and in defining chronic and antibody-mediated rejection in VCA are then presented, and we finish by analyzing current research directions and novel concepts aiming at improving available diagnostic measures.

Since its introduction by Illouz and others over 30 years ago, suction-assisted lipectomy/liposuction/lipoplasty has evolved tremendously and has developed into one of the most popular procedures in aesthetic plastic surgery. Liposuction is an effective procedure employed to treat localized adipose deposits in patients not suffering from generalized obesity. These accumulations of subcutaneous fat often occur in predictable distributions in both men and women. A cannula connected to a suction-generating source allows for small incisions to be strategically placed and large volumes of fat to be removed. This fat removal leads to improved harmonious balance of a patient’s physique and improved body contour. Various surgical techniques are available and have evolved as technology has improved. Current technology for liposuction includes suction-assisted lipectomy, ultrasound-assisted, power-assisted, laser-assisted, and radiofrequency-assisted. The choice of technology and technique often depends on patient characteristics and surgeon preference. The objective of this review is to provide a thorough assessment of current technologies available to plastic surgeons performing liposuction.

Purpose Filgrastim (NEUPOGEN ®) is the originator recombi-nant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor widely used for preventing neutropenia-related infections and mobilizing he-matopoietic stem cells. This report presents findings of a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim to update previous reports. Methods A literature search of electronic databases, congress abstracts, and bibliographies of recent reviews was conducted to identify English-language reports of clinical trials and observational studies evaluating filgrastim in its US-approved indications up to February 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed titles/abstracts and full texts of publications, and extracted data from studies that compared originator filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment. For outcomes with sufficient homogeneous data reported across studies, meta-analysis was performed and relative risk (RR) determined. Data were summarized descriptively for all other evaluated outcomes. Results A total of 1194 unique articles evaluating originator filgrastim were identified, with 25 meeting eligibility criteria for data extraction: 18 randomized controlled trials , 2 nonrandomized clinical trials, and 5 observational studies. In chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN), filgrastim vs placebo or no treatment significantly reduced febrile neutro-penia incidence (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53-0.75) and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia incidence (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37-0.68). The most commonly reported adverse event (AE) with filgrastim was bone pain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.29-5.27 in CIN). Additional efficacy and safety outcomes are described within indications. Conclusions This systematic literature review and meta-analysis confirms and updates previous reports on the efficacy and safety of originator filgrastim. Bone pain was the commonly reported AE associated with filgrastim use.

Background: For women undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the comparative benefits and harms of implant-based reconstruction (IBR) and autologous reconstruction (AR) are not well known. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of IBR versus AR after mastectomy for breast cancer. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies from inception to March 23, 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and strength of evidence (SoE) of our findings using standard methods. Results: We screened 15,936 citations and included 40 studies (two randomized controlled trials and 38 adjusted nonrandomized comparative studies). Compared with patients who undergo IBR, those who undergo AR experience clinically significant better sexual well-being [summary adjusted mean difference (adjMD) 5.8, 95% CI 3.4–8.2; three studies] and satisfaction with breasts (summary adjMD 8.1, 95% CI 6.1–10.1; three studies) (moderate SoE for both outcomes). AR was associated with a greater risk of venous thromboembolism (moderate SoE), but IBR was associated with a greater risk of reconstructive failure (moderate SoE) and seroma (low SoE) in long-term follow-up (1.5–4 years). Other outcomes were comparable between groups, or the evidence was insufficient to merit conclusions. Conclusions: Most evidence regarding IBR versus AR is of low or moderate SoE. AR is probably associated with better sexual well-being and satisfaction with breasts and lower risks of seroma and long-term reconstructive failure but a higher risk of thromboembolic events. New high-quality research is needed to address the important research gaps.

In male rats, growth hormone therapy accelerates axonal regeneration, reduces muscle atrophy, and promotes muscle reinnervation. Growth hormone therapy may also maintain proliferating Schwann cells in the setting of prolonged denervation. These findings suggest potential for improved outcomes with growth hormone therapy after peripheral nerve injuries.

Objectives. This systematic review evaluates breast reconstruction options for women after mastectomy for breast cancer (or breast cancer prophylaxis). We addressed six Key Questions (KQs): (1) implant-based reconstruction (IBR) versus autologous reconstruction (AR), (2) timing of IBR and AR in relation to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, (3) comparisons of implant materials, (4) comparisons of anatomic planes for IBR, (5) use versus nonuse of human acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) during IBR, and (6) comparisons of AR flap types. Data sources and review methods. We searched Medline®, Embase®, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL®, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 23, 2021, to identify comparative and single group studies. We extracted study data into the Systematic Review Data Repository Plus (SRDR+). We assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the strength of evidence (SoE) using standard methods. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020193183). Results. We found 8 randomized controlled trials, 83 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 69 single group studies. Risk of bias was moderate to high for most studies. KQ1: Compared with IBR, AR is probably associated with clinically better patient satisfaction with breasts and sexual well-being but comparable general quality of life and psychosocial well-being (moderate SoE, all outcomes). AR probably poses a greater risk of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (moderate SoE), but IBR probably poses a greater risk of reconstructive failure in the long term (1.5 to 4 years) (moderate SoE) and may pose a greater risk of breast seroma (low SoE). KQ 2: Conducting IBR either before or after radiation therapy may result in comparable physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and patient satisfaction with breasts (all low SoE), and probably results in comparable risks of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE). We found no evidence addressing timing of IBR or AR in relation to chemotherapy or timing of AR in relation to radiation therapy. KQ 3: Silicone and saline implants may result in clinically comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE). There is insufficient evidence regarding double lumen implants. KQ 4: Whether the implant is placed in the prepectoral or total submuscular plane may not be associated with risk of infections that are not explicitly implant related (low SoE). There is insufficient evidence addressing the comparisons between prepectoral and partial submuscular and between partial and total submuscular planes. KQ 5: The evidence is inconsistent regarding whether human ADM use during IBR impacts physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, or satisfaction with breasts. However, ADM use probably increases the risk of implant failure/loss or need for explant surgery (moderate SoE) and may increase the risk of infections not explicitly implant related (low SoE). Whether or not ADM is used probably is associated with comparable risks of seroma and unplanned repeat surgeries for revision (moderate SoE for both), and possibly necrosis (low SoE). KQ 6: AR with either transverse rectus abdominis (TRAM) or deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE), but TRAM flaps probably increase the risk of harms to the area of flap harvest (moderate SoE). AR with either DIEP or latissimus dorsi flaps may result in comparable patient satisfaction with breasts (low SoE), but there is insufficient evidence regarding thromboembolic events and no evidence regarding other surgical complications. Conclusion. Evidence regarding surgical breast reconstruction options is largely insufficient or of only low or moderate SoE. New high-quality research is needed, especially for timing of IBR and AR in relation to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, for comparisons of implant materials, and for comparisons of anatomic planes of implant placement.

Reconstruction of complex defects of the anterior abdomen is both challenging and technically demanding for reconstructive surgeons. Advancements in the use of pedicle and free tissue transfer along with the use of bioprosthetic and synthetic meshes have provided for novel approaches to these complex defects. Accordingly, detailed knowledge of abdominal wall and lower extremity anatomy in combination with insight into the design, implementation, and limitations of various flaps is essential to solve these complex clinical problems. Although these defects can be attributed to a myriad of etiologic factors, the objectives in abdominal wall reconstruction are consistent and include the restoration of abdominal wall integrity, protection of intraabdominal viscera, and the prevention of herniation. In this article, the authors review pertinent anatomy and the various local, regional, and distant flaps that can be utilized in the reconstruction of these complex clinical cases of the anterior abdomen.

No abstract