Hydrogen Sulfide Delays Onset of Acute Rejection in Porcine Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation Model

Lawson, Sharon D.; Wang, Lin‐Chi; Fries, C. Anton; Davis, Michael R.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.266

Cited by 2 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The time required to elapse between the recipient's initial injury and FT ranged across programs. One program (4%) performed an immediate FT, 78 1 program (4%) mentioned that 3 months from the initial injury is required, 49 and 3 programs (13%) specified that at least 6 months from time of injury are needed to elapse before FT surgery 7,14,34 . The remaining 19 programs (79%) did not report on the timing of FT.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the recipient selection criteria that remain especially experimental and require more FT-specific experience, such as pediatric FT, there was no consensus between programs. For the programs listing pediatric age as an exclusion criterion, 7,18,61,73,98,109 there were concerns about the effects on tissue development, the availability of alternative procedures, the harsh immunosuppression regimen, and the enhanced malleability of self-identity in childhood. In contrast, the main concern of supporters of pediatric FTwas whether pediatric patients could properly give informed consent before proceeding with the surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the importance of recipient selection is widely accepted, the guidelines for the selection process remain program-dependent 7,13 . Most programs are publishing about their methodology and results, but the recipient inclusion and exclusion criteria remain scattered across different sources 3,14–18 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Appropriately, each established FT program develops their own recipient selection criteria through a multidisciplinary assessment of expert opinions and currently available evidence. 7,8 Prior experiences with FT have also shaped recipient selection guidelines, such as the death of the second face transplant recipient after noncompliance with his immunosuppressive medication regimen 9,10 and the death of a human immunodeficiency virus positive (HIV+) recipient with a history of squamous cell carcinoma who eventually succumbed to lymphoma. [10][11][12] Thus, understanding the impact of recipient criteria on the surgical outcomes of FT is critical to navigating future procedures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the importance of recipient selection is widely accepted, the guidelines for the selection process remain program-dependent. 7,13 Most programs are publishing about their methodology and results, but the recipient inclusion and exclusion criteria remain scattered across different sources. 3,[14][15][16][17][18] The objective of this article is to provide a single resource of the recipient selection criteria used by established FT programs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Recipient Selection Criteria for Facial Transplantation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recipient Selection Criteria for Facial Transplantation

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation of the Hand

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Hydrogen Sulfide Delays Onset of Acute Rejection in Porcine Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation Model

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Recipient Selection Criteria for Facial Transplantation

Recipient Selection Criteria for Facial Transplantation

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation of the Hand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About