Three-Dimensional Analysis of Donor Masks for Facial Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Face transplant teams have an ethical responsibility to restore the donor's likeness after allograft procurement. This has been achieved with masks constructed from facial impressions and three-dimensional printing. The authors compare the accuracy of conventional impression and three-dimensional printing technology. METHODS: For three subjects, a three-dimensionally-printed mask was created using advanced three-dimensional imaging and PolyJet technology. Three silicone masks were made using an impression technique; a mold requiring direct contact with each subject's face was reinforced by plaster bands and filled with silicone. Digital models of the face and both masks of each subject were acquired with Vectra H1 Imaging or Artec scanners. Each digital mask model was overlaid onto its corresponding digital face model using a seven-landmark coregistration; part comparison was performed. The absolute deviation between each digital mask and digital face model was compared with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The absolute deviation (in millimeters) of each digitally printed mask model relative to the digital face model was significantly smaller than that of the digital silicone mask model (subject 1, 0.61 versus 1.29, p < 0.001; subject 2, 2.59 versus 2.87, p < 0.001; subject 3, 1.77 versus 4.20, p < 0.001). Mean cost and production times were $720 and 40.2 hours for three-dimensionally printed masks, and $735 and 11 hours for silicone masks. CONCLUSIONS: Surface analysis shows that three-dimensionally-printed masks offer greater surface accuracy than silicone masks. Greater donor resemblance without additional risk to the allograft may make three-dimensionally-printed masks the superior choice for face transplant teams. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.

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.

Successes and lessons learned after more than a decade of upper extremity and face transplantation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to present the most recent updates on face and upper-extremity allotransplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, 27 face and more than 89 upper-extremity allotransplantations have been performed. Both the face and hand transplants restored form, function and patients' social integration. The complications were comparable with solid organs; however, face transplantation, as well as the combination of face and double hand transplantation, presented with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence of chronic rejection was confirmed in hand transplants, but it has not been reported yet for facial transplantation. Novel immunosuppressive protocols have allowed a decrease in the number and dosages of traditional immunosuppressants. With increased awareness that following face and hand transplantation, the return of function is more important than anatomical restoration of the missing parts, there has been an important shift in the ethical debate weighing the risks and benefits of face and hand allotransplantation. SUMMARY: Early results after face and upper extremity transplantation are promising, with 5-year survival rates greater than in solid organ transplants. However, these procedures still need to be closely monitored and the outcome data should be rigorously reported to the central patient registry database to allow continuous surveillance.

Face transplantation program in France: a cost analysis of five patients.

BACKGROUND: Among 18 face transplantations (FTs) performed worldwide, seven were performed at the Henri Mondor Hospital, Paris, France. Their feasibility and risk-benefit ratios have been reported, whereas this study analyzed the costs of FT for our first five patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The first five FT patients transplanted at the Henri Mondor Hospital presented disfigurements due to neurofibromatosis, severe burns, or ballistic trauma and had no relevant comorbidity. All were socially isolated and unemployed. We analyzed the costs of preoperative investigations, operative procedures, and hospitalization for each patient. A public research program (PHRC) financed the procedures, and the clinical research department refunded each FT's cost. To allow comparisons between health care systems, the cost of FT was compared with the mean costs of heart, liver, and kidney transplantations performed at the same institution. RESULTS: If all the five patients survived the FT procedure, one patient died during subsequent revisions procedures for sepsis. The overall costs for the operation and its subsequent hospitalization for each patient ranged from (20AC)103,108 to (20AC)170,071, depending on the transplant required, the technical pitfalls, the outcomes, and mainly postoperative intensive cares. CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, the transplantation of a face led to higher costs than heart or any other solid organ and represented twice the costs faced for a liver transplantation. FT is currently performed in a research setting, and cost might decrease with teams' experiences, which may shorten postoperative intensive care and overall hospital stays.

Cost analysis of conventional facial reconstruction procedures followed by face transplantation.

For the first time, this study analyzes the cost of multiple conventional reconstructions and face transplantation in a single patient. This patient is a 46-year-old female victim of a shotgun blast resulting in loss of multiple functional and aesthetic subunits. For over 5 years, she underwent multiple conventional reconstructions with suboptimal results. In December 2008, she became the recipient of the first U.S. face transplant. This has provided the unique opportunity to present the cost of 23 separate conventional reconstructive procedures and the first face transplant in the United States. The combined cost of conventional reconstructive procedures and the first U.S. face transplant was calculated to be $353 480 and $349 959, respectively. The combined cost posttransplant totaled $115 463. The direct cost pretransplant was $206 646, $232 893 peritransplant and $74 236 posttransplant. The two largest areas of cost utilization were surgical ($79 625; 38.5%) and nursing ($55 860; 27%), followed by anesthesia ($24 808; 12%) and pharmacy ($16 581; 8%). This study demonstrates that the cost of the first U.S. face transplant is similar to multiple conventional reconstructions. Although the cost of facial transplantation is considerable, the alleviation of psychological and physiological suffering, exceptional functional recovery and fulfillment of long-lasting hope for social reintegration may be priceless.

Current concepts and future challenges in facial transplantation.

Facial allotransplantation has become a surgical reality. The first successful segmental human face transplants have demonstrated that facial allografts are reliable, their rejection can be prevented by low-dose immunosuppression, and their neurologic recovery enables oral and expressive functions of the face to be restored. Clinical facts have shown that the risk-benefit balance is acceptable in the medium term, that at the neurocognitive level the allograft is reintegrated in the body scheme of the recipient, and that it does not engender a donor identity transfer. This article presents a classification of facial allografts and discusses the technical, immunologic, and ethical challenges that lie ahead.