A Call to Accountability: Reporting Outcomes in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation.

Because nearly all the vascularized composite allotransplants performed in the United States have been proposed and carried out as research, the ethical duty to report outcomes pertains. This duty is set forth in several international statements, including the World Health Organization's Statement on Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results, the 2013 Helsinki Declaration, and the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. These international statements call for the reporting of negative and inconclusive outcomes as well as positive outcomes, and for the reporting of results from previously unreported past research. In 2014, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network vascularized composite allotransplant committee proposed mandatory data collection and submission requirements for transplants, but only for those which took place in September 2015 or later. Reporting of data for the allotransplants which took place before September 2015 was regarded as optional, even though the pre-September 2015 transplants represent the majority of vascularized composite allotransplants in the United States and all the long-term outcome data. We encourage the American Society of Reconstructive Transplantation and the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network committee to embrace the international ethical standards and to hold all vascularized composite allotransplant programs in the United States accountable for reporting data on outcomes of pre-September 2015 transplants.

Existing and Evolving Bioethical Dilemmas, Challenges, and Controversies in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: An International Perspective From the Brocher Bioethics Working Group.

Early results of hand and face transplants and other grafts such as those of uterus, penis, trachea, larynx, or abdominal wall have confirmed the potential for vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) to restore appearance, anatomy, function, independence, and social integration in patients suffering from devastating tissue deficits untreatable by conventional treatment options. Despite such promise, these novel and complex procedures face challenges and controversies that remain open to discussion and debate. Indeed, many barriers to clinical advancement and negative stakeholder perceptions still exist. The bioethical challenges surrounding VCA include but are not limited to justice and vulnerability of subjects, and their experiences with risks, benefits and outcomes, provider economy of fame, public awareness and attitudes toward transplantation, and policy and regulatory issues shaping progress of the field. The First International Workshop on Bioethical Challenges in Reconstructive Transplantation was organized by the Brocher Foundation in Hermance, Switzerland. VCA professionals representing teams from across the world examined bioethical issues in VCA related to standards for safety, efficacy, feasibility, privacy, confidentiality, and equitability. Key discussion topics from the workshop were included in a survey questionnaire implemented across VCA professionals attending the 13th Congress of International Society of VCA held in Salzburg, Austria. The insights from the Brocher workshop and International Society of VCA survey as presented here could help inform the future development of clinical practice and policy strategies in VCA to ensure value, accessibility, and acceptance of these procedures by potential donors, potential or actual recipients and their families, and providers and payers.

Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies.

STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review of literature. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results. METHODS: A Medline search of English language literature published through March 2016 discussing bone graft substitutes and fusion extenders was performed. All clinical studies reporting radiological and/or patient outcomes following the use of bone substitutes were reviewed under the broad categories of Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrices (DBM), Ceramics, Bone Morphogenic proteins (BMPs), Autologous growth factors (AGFs), Stem cell products and Synthetic Peptides. These were further grouped depending on their application in lumbar and cervical spine surgeries, deformity correction or other miscellaneous procedures viz. trauma, infection or tumors; wherever data was forthcoming. Studies in animal populations and experimental in vitro studies were excluded. Primary endpoints were radiological fusion rates and successful clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.