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 Malar augmentation is a key procedure sought out by transfeminine individuals seeking to feminize their facial appearance. Different surgical techniques have been described in the literature including fat transfer to the cheeks and malar implant placement. Because of the paucity of information in the literature, there is no consensus on best practices for this procedure. The objective of our study is to determine the effectiveness and safety of malar implants as compared with fat transfer to the cheeks in transfeminine individuals. Methods We examined all patients with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria that were referred to the senior author seeking consultation for feminizing facial procedures between June 2017 and August 2022. Patients who underwent fat transfer to the cheeks or malar implant placement were included in our study. We reviewed the electronic medical record of each patient, and we retrieved and analyzed data regarding demographics, medical and surgical history, operative dictations, clinic notes, and postoperative follow-up. Univariate analysis was used to assess for differences in postoperative complications between these 2 groups. Results We identified 231 patients underwent feminizing facial gender affirming surgery, with 152 patients receiving malar augmentation through malar implants or fat grafting. One hundred twenty-nine patients (84.9%) underwent malar implant placement and 23 (15.1%) underwent fat grafting to the cheeks. The mean follow-up time was 3.6 ± 2.7 months. Patient satisfaction was greater in the malar implant group (126/129, 97.7%) compared with the fat transfer group (20/23, 87%, P < 0.045). Two patients who received implants (1.8%) experienced postoperative complications. No patient undergoing fat transfer experiences similar adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 1.00). Conclusions Our findings support the contention that malar implants are a safe alternative for malar augmentation among transfeminine individuals. While autologous fat transfer to the cheek is an indispensable option in patients requiring minor malar enhancement, malar implants offer a more permanent option with a better aesthetic outcome in patients requiring major malar enhancement. To minimize postoperative complications, surgeons should emphasize patient compliance with postoperative directions.

Background Hand transplantation (HT) has emerged as an intervention of last resort for those who endured amputation or irreparable loss of upper extremity function. However, because of the considerable effort required for allograft management and the risks of lifelong immunosuppression, patient eligibility is critical to treatment success. Thus, the objective of this article is to investigate the reported eligibility criteria of HT centers globally. Methods A systematic review of the HT literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid/Medline, and Scopus. Program Web sites and clinicaltrials.gov entries were included where available. Results A total of 354 articles were reviewed, 101 of which met inclusion criteria. Furthermore, 10 patient-facing Web sites and 11 clinical trials were included. The most reported criteria related to the capacity to manage the allograft posttransplantation, including access to follow-up, insurance coverage, psychological stability, and history of medical compliance. Other factors related to the impact of immunosuppression, such as active pregnancy and patient immune status, were less emphasized. Conclusions Because of the novelty of the field, eligibility criteria continue to evolve. While there is consensus on certain eligibility factors, other criteria diverge between programs, and very few factors were considered absolute contraindications. As the popularity of the field continues to grow, we encourage the development of consensus evidence-based eligibility criteria.