Vascularized Composite Allograft Versus Prosthetic for Reconstruction After Facial and Hand Trauma: Comparing Cost, Complications, and Long-term Outcome.

ABSTRACT: In the past decade, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has become clinical reality for reconstruction after face and hand trauma. It offers patients the unique opportunity to regain form and function in a way that had only been achieved with traditional reconstruction or with the use of prostheses. On the other hand, prostheses for facial and hand reconstruction have continued to evolve over the years and, in many cases, represent the primary option for patients after hand and face trauma. We compared the cost, associated complications, and long-term outcomes of VCA with prostheses for reconstruction of the face and hand/upper extremity. Ultimately, VCA and prostheses represent 2 different reconstructive options with distinct benefit profiles and associated limitations and should ideally not be perceived as competing choices. Our work adds a valuable component to the general framework guiding the decision to offer VCA or prostheses for reconstruction after face and upper extremity trauma.

Understanding the Drivers of Cost and Length of Stay in a Cohort of 21,875 Patients with Severe Burn.

Burn management has significantly advanced in the past 75 years, resulting in improved mortality rates. However, there are still over one million burn victims in the United States each year, with over 3,000 burn-related deaths annually. The impacts of individual patient, hospital, and regional demographics on length of stay (LOS) and total cost have yet to be fully explored in a large nationally representative cohort. Thus, this study aimed to examine various hospital and patient characteristics using a sample of over 20,000 patients. Inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2015 were analyzed, and only patients with an ICD-9 code for second- or third-degree burns were included. In addition, a major operating room procedure must have been indicated on the discharge summary for patients to be included in the final dataset, ensuring that only severe burns requiring complex care were analyzed. Analysis of covariance models was used to evaluate the impact of various patient, hospital, and regional variables on both LOS and cost. The study found that skin grafts and fasciotomy significantly increased the cost of hospitalization. Having burns on the face, neck, and trunk significantly increased costs for patients with second-degree burns, while burns on the trunk resulted in the longest LOS for patients with third-degree burns. Infections in the hospital and additional procedures, such as flaps and skin grafts, also led to longer stays. The study also found that the prevalence of postoperative complications, such as electrolyte imbalance, was high among patients with burn surgery.

Ensuring Racial and Ethnic Inclusivity in Facial Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation.

Facial vascularized composite allotransplantation (fVCA) represents a valuable surgical option for reconstruction of the most devastating facial defects. There is a mounting body of evidence suggesting that healthcare disparities exist for a variety of other surgical and nonsurgical procedures. We aimed to investigate the potential existence of racial and ethnic disparities in the field of fVCA. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted by the authors of this review on PubMed/MEDLINE, and Embase databases from database inception to December 1, 2022 for studies published in the English and French languages. The search terms were (1) "face" OR "facial" AND (2) "transplant" OR "VCA" OR "vascularized composite allotransplantation" OR "vascularized composite allograft" OR "graft." Results: Upon assessment of the racial and ethnic demographics of the 47 global cases of fVCA between 2005 and 2020, 36 were White, 10 were Asian, and one was Black. Sixteen of the 17 fVCA procedures performed in the United States involved White patients. The other patient self-identified as Black, equaling 6% of all US fVCA recipients. Conclusion: Our analysis showed that the ethnic and racial distribution of fVCA has not proportionally reflected the racial and ethnic demographics of the general US population, underscoring the risk of such healthcare imbalances. Although large-scale studies are needed before drawing definitive conclusions, leaders in the field should take preventive steps to avoid potential disparities. Further investigations into the factors that facilitate or prohibit access to fVCA referral and surgery will be necessary moving forward.

Rates of National Institutes of Health Funding for Surgeon-Scientists, 1995-2020.

Importance: Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists. Objective: To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022. Main Outcome: National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties. Results: Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%. Conclusion and Relevance: This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

Gender Disparity in National Institutes of Health Funding Among Surgeon-Scientists From 1995 to 2020.

Importance: Surgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery. Objective: To examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Distribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022. Results: Between 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.

Racial disparities in short-term outcomes after breast reduction surgery-A National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Analysis with 23,268 patients using Propensity Score Matching.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of widespread disparities in healthcare for racial and ethnic minorities is well documented. This study aims to evaluate differences in surgical outcomes after breast reduction surgery (BRS) according to patients' ethnicities. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2018) was utilized to analyze two propensity score matched patient cohorts-White and non-White-that underwent BRS. Preoperative variables assessed included demographic data and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obesity. Postoperative outcomes assessed were medical complications, minor and major surgical complications, as well as mortality. RESULTS: In total, 23268 patients underwent BRS and met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching, the two cohorts were matched with respect to these preoperative variables, and 7187 patients were included in each cohort of White and non-White patients (total 14374). After matching, overall 30-day major complications were not significantly different between White and non-White cohort (2.25% vs 2.14%, p=0.65). After accounting for differences in confounding variables at the patient and socioeconomic level, racial and ethnic minorities who underwent breast reduction were found to experience fewer minor surgical complications. The analysis of temporal trends identified an overall rise in the number of patients seeking BRS, with a higher increase noted in the non-White population. CONCLUSION: Overall, our findings are reassuring exemptions to prevalent racial and ethnic health inequalities and can serve as a positive example for adequate and fair provision of surgical care.

Quality of Life after Face Transplantation: Outcomes, Assessment Tools, and Future Directions.

BACKGROUND: Face transplantation has emerged as a clinical reality for the restoration of complex facial defects. Critical to the advancement of the burgeoning field of reconstructive transplantation is the quality of the methods used to measure and report the impact of face transplantation on quality of life. METHODS: A systematic search using PubMed and EMBASE was conducted for all studies matching the a priori inclusion criteria from 2005 through 2015. Bibliographies of included studies were also reviewed. Two authors (M.A.A and H.K) independently performed screening of titles. RESULTS: The authors identified 17 articles reporting on quality-of-life outcomes among 14 face transplant recipients. Combinations of objective and subjective measures were used to assess quality of life. Instruments used to assess quality of life after face transplantation included over 25 different instruments. Four centers, comprising eight patients, have reported using prospective, systematic data with validated instruments. Overall, there is reported improvement in quality of life after face transplantation. Heterogeneity and a paucity of data between articles preclude a quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Anecdotal and subjective reports of improvements in quality of life after face transplantation constitute the majority of reported outcomes in the English peer-reviewed literature. Improved efforts in methods and standardization of collection and reporting of quality-of-life data after face transplantation are needed to better appreciate the impact of face transplantation on quality of life and justify lifelong immunosuppression and its attendant risks and morbidity.

A Retrospective Analysis of Secondary Revisions after Face Transplantation: Assessment of Outcomes, Safety, and Feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Face transplantation has emerged as a viable option for certain patients in the treatment of devastating facial injuries. However, as with autologous free tissue transfer, the need for secondary revisions in face transplantation also exists. The authors' group has quantified the number of revision operations in their cohort and has assessed the rationale, safety, and outcomes of posttransplantation revisions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of the authors' seven face transplants was performed from April of 2009 to July of 2015. The patients' medical records, preoperative facial defects, and all operative reports (index and secondary revisions) were critically reviewed. RESULTS: The average number of revision procedures was 2.6 per patient (range, zero to five procedures). The median time interval from face transplantation to revision surgery was 5 months (range, 1 to 10 months). Most interventions consisted of debulking of the allograft, superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication and suspension, and local tissue rearrangement. There were no major infections, allograft skin flap loss, or necrosis. One patient suffered a postoperative complication after autologous fat grafting in the form of acute rejection that resolved with pulse steroids. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary revisions after face transplantation are necessary components of care, as they are after most conventional free tissue transfers. Secondary revisions after face transplantation at the authors' institution have addressed both aesthetic and functional reconstructive needs, and these procedures have proven to be safe in the context of maintenance immunosuppression. Patient and procedure selection along with timing are essential to ensure patient safety, optimal function, and aesthetic outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

Medical 3D Printing for the Radiologist.

While use of advanced visualization in radiology is instrumental in diagnosis and communication with referring clinicians, there is an unmet need to render Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) images as three-dimensional (3D) printed models capable of providing both tactile feedback and tangible depth information about anatomic and pathologic states. Three-dimensional printed models, already entrenched in the nonmedical sciences, are rapidly being embraced in medicine as well as in the lay community. Incorporating 3D printing from images generated and interpreted by radiologists presents particular challenges, including training, materials and equipment, and guidelines. The overall costs of a 3D printing laboratory must be balanced by the clinical benefits. It is expected that the number of 3D-printed models generated from DICOM images for planning interventions and fabricating implants will grow exponentially. Radiologists should at a minimum be familiar with 3D printing as it relates to their field, including types of 3D printing technologies and materials used to create 3D-printed anatomic models, published applications of models to date, and clinical benefits in radiology. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Cost analysis of conventional face reconstruction versus face transplantation for large tissue defects.

BACKGROUND: Large facial tissue defects are traditionally treated with staged conventional reconstruction. Facial allograft transplantation has emerged as a treatment modality. Facial allografts are procured from a dead donor and transplanted to the recipient. Recipients are then subjected to lifelong global immunosuppression to prevent immunologic rejection. This study analyzes the cost of facial allograft transplantation in comparison with conventional reconstruction. METHODS: Hospital billing records from facial allograft transplantation (2009 to 2011) and conventional reconstruction (2000 to 2010) patients were compiled. Comparative 1-year costs were calculated, segregated by physician, hospital, and hospital's department costs. Because most conventional reconstruction patients had smaller facial deficits than their facial allograft transplantation counterparts, regression models were used to estimate costs of conventional reconstruction for full facial defects, mirroring the facial transplantation cohort. All costs were adjusted using the medical consumer price index. RESULTS: One-year costs for facial allograft transplantation were significantly higher than those for conventional reconstruction (mean/median, $337,360/$313,068 versus $70,230/$64,451, respectively). One-year costs for a hypothetical full-face conventional reconstruction were $184,061 (95 percent CI, $89,358 to $278,763). The per-patient cost in a hypothetical cohort of conventional reconstruction patients with deficits identical to four facial allograft transplantation recipients was $155,475 (95 percent CI, $69,021 to $241,929). CONCLUSIONS: Initial cost comparison portrays facial allograft transplantation as significantly more costly than conventional reconstruction. However, after adjustments for case severity, the cost profiles are similar. Gains in efficiency and experience are expected to lower costs. Additional unmeasured benefits may also positively influence the cost-to-benefit ratio of facial allograft transplantation.

Establishing a composite tissue allotransplantation program.

Composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) has emerged as a promising surgical option to restore the form and function of missing or severely damaged structures such as the face, hands, or trachea. Currently, there are four active CTA programs in the United States and numerous others under development. The process of development of a CTA program in the United States involves successful collaboration between a strong project leader with vested clinical research interest, a multidisciplinary team of investigators, an Institutional Review Board, a regional Organ Processing Organization (PO), and the hospital's administration. The process of establishment of a CTA program can be slow and lengthy, therefore the project leader must strive to maintain the enthusiasm alive and drive the project forward. At all phases of development, the project must remain focused on the patients, must recognize and address all potential patient safety issues, must take into account the concerns, issues and logistic hurdles faced by the OPO, and must be financially responsible by ensuring that postoperative costs related to medical care and life-long immunosuppression are covered by medical insurance. This article describes the process of establishment of a CTA program at Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA with special emphasis on strategy and planning.