OPTN/SRTR 2022 Annual Data Report: Vascularized Composite Allograft.

This year's chapter on vascularized composite allograft (VCA) encompasses reviews of data collected from 2014 (when VCA was included in the Final Rule) through 2022. The present Annual Data Report shows that the number of VCA recipients in the United States continues to be small and has remained consistent from the prior report. The data continue to be limited by sample size, with trends persistently demonstrating a predominance of White males in the young/middle-aged population as both donors and recipients for nonuterus VCA transplants, and White women younger than 35 years as the predominant recipients of uterus transplant. Similar to the 2021 report, there were only eight failed uterus grafts and one failed nonuterus VCA graft reported from 2014 through 2022. Standardization of definitions of success and failure as well as outcome measures for the different VCA types remain unmet needs in VCA transplantation.

OPTN/SRTR 2021 Annual Data Report: Vascularized Composite Allograft.

Year 2020 marked the first OPTN/SRTR Annual Data Report that included a chapter on vascularized composite allograft (VCA), which encompassed reviews of data collected between 2014 (when VCA was included in the Final Rule) and 2020. The present Annual Data Report shows that the number of VCA recipients in the United States continues to be small and trended downward in 2021. While data continue to be limited by sample size, trends continue to show a predominance in White, young/middle-aged, male recipients. Similar to the 2020 report, eight uterus and one non-uterus VCA graft failures were reported from 2014 through 2021. Critical to advancement of VCA transplantation will be the standardization of definitions, protocols, and outcome measures for the different VCA types. Like intestinal transplants, it is likely that VCA transplants will be concentrated and performed at referral transplant centers.

OPTN/SRTR 2020 Annual Data Report: VCA.

The first vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplant in the United States was performed in 1998 in a 40-year-old man who received a laryn-geal transplant after experiencing severe trauma to the throat 20 years before. The following VCA was a hand transplant in 1999 in a 37-year-old man who lost his left hand 13 years before. Since then, the field of VCA transplantation has made significant strides. On July 3, 2014, the Or gan Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) oversight of VCA procurement and transplant in the United States went into effect. In the last decade, the number of candidates listed for and transplanted with VCA has increased. While patient demographic data, whether listed candidates or patients undergoing VCA transplant, is limited by sample size, the trend is a predominance toward a young/middle-aged, White population. Overall outcomes data have been promising, with the vast majority of VCA transplants resulting in functioning grafts.

Hand transplantation: can we balance the risks and benefits?

Asking 'can we balance the risks and benefits?' implies that a quantification of both risk and benefit in hand transplantation (here the terms hand transplant and hand transplantation refer to allotransplantation of the human hand or hand and part or all of the upper limb or limbs) is possible. Despite all we have learned in recent years about hand transplantation, much remains unknown. Even if reliable methods for quantification of risk and benefit were available, fundamental issues relating to effective communication across the gulf of lived experience between the (presumably) handed surgeon and the handless patient remain. Inherent complexities mean some consider hand transplantation an unsolved problem, but we believe the medical and technical considerations fall within the ambit of a competent multidisciplinary team, and that psychosocial and ethical challenges are open to management through robust frameworks for assessment and decision making, underpinned by an extended period of assessment and dialogue, with candid acknowledgement where uncertainty remains. This respects the patient's autonomy while addressing the need for a prolonged period of informing consent.Level of evidence: V.