Face Transplant: Current Update and First Canadian Experience

Govshievich, Alexander; Saleh, Eli; Boghossian, Elie; Collette, Suzon; Désy, Delphine; Dufresne, Simon F.; St-Jacques, Helen; Chollet, André; Tremblay, Dominique; Guertin, Charles; Tardif, Michèle; Poirier, Jean; Ayad, Tareck; Rahal, Akram; Borsuk, Daniel E.

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000007890

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social integration after face transplant is almost ubiquitous. 8 Because a biologic eye is expected to give a more natural feel when compared with currently available prostheses, it could be theorized that the patient would experience similar improvements in mental health, body image, and social integration. As such, we encourage a thorough appreciation of the psychosocial dimensions if WET is attempted again in humans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, since the first accomplished hand transplant in 1998, over 200 successful VCAs have been performed. 8 These advances in VCA technologies have led to the re-emergence of primary literature on WET. Although vision restoration remains the ultimate goal, WET may also be warranted in the case of eye enucleation after facial trauma, especially when facial transplantation is already planned.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technical Feasibility of Whole-eye Vascular Composite Allotransplantation: A Systematic Review

Laspro

Chaya

Brydges

et al. 2023

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Feasibility of Whole-eye Vascular Composite Allotransplantation: A Systematic Review

Laspro

Chaya

Brydges

et al. 2023

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors of the May 2021 Reconstructive article entitled “Face Transplant: Current Update and First Canadian Experience” ( Plast Reconstr Surg . 2021;147:1177–1188) 1 wish to make the following correction: One co-author, Jenny C. Lin, M.D., Ph.D., was mistakenly omitted from the author list. The correct final author list is as follows:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%