A Call to Accountability: Reporting Outcomes in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation in Burn Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Vascularized composite allotransplantation has been successfully employed for burn reconstruction since 2003. However, its safety in this population has been questioned due to high levels of alloimmunization from burn care-related tissue exposures. To investigate this, a systematic review of vascularized composite allotransplantation employed for burn reconstruction was conducted, evaluating literature from January 2000 to September 2019. Articles containing vascularized composite allotransplantation, composite tissue allotransplantation, and burn reconstructive surgery were included; articles without published outcomes were excluded. Observational meta-analysis of pooled mortality and acute rejection episodes relative to allograft type (face vs extremity) and reconstruction type (burn vs non-burn) was performed. Twenty-four of the 63 identified articles met the criteria for inclusion, with 5 more articles added after secondary review. To date, 152 allotransplantations have been performed in 117 patients: 45 face transplants and 107 extremity transplants. Of these, 34 (22%) were performed for burn reconstruction in 25 patients (21%) with an overall higher 1-year mortality rate (12.0% vs 1.1%, P  = .030). Of these deaths, 75% received three or more simultaneous allografts. Additionally, more episodes of acute rejection occurred compared to non-burn patients (4.4 vs 2.4, P  = .035). Vascularized composite allotransplantation performed for burn reconstruction was found to be associated with a greater risk of 1-year mortality and nearly twice the number of episodes of acute rejection. Future studies should seek to identify unique risk factors of burn patients undergoing this operation and evaluate the relationship between antigenic burden and surgical outcomes.

Limitations and limits and of vascularized composite allotransplantations: can we reach the holy grail?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent times, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) have been gaining more attention and applications. Currently, VCA are at the highest level of the reconstruction pyramid, and thus the effects expected after them are intended to outweigh what the 'classical' reconstructive surgery can offer us, including even the most advanced microsurgical techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over 40 patients have received a partial or full-face transplant. Others have received penis, uterus, larynx, abdominal wall, and lower extremity transplants. Each type of VCA has its own problems and limitations. However, resolving the limits defined by immunosuppression and improved donor selection would revolutionize all of them.

SUMMARY

Defining the limits and limitations of given procedures will not only allow for better preparation of transplant teams but will also help in determining the direction of future research.

Current and future regulatory and financial challenges in vascularized composite allotransplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss current and future regulatory and financial issues affecting the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Vascularized composite allografts are regulated by the US Department of Health and Human Services Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Final Rule (42 CFR part 121) in the United States and Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 7 July 2010 in the European Union (EU). However, in the United States and most of the EU, VCA is not yet paid for by insurance or third-party payers and many centers depend upon grant funding, philanthropic gifts, and/or supplemental hospital/institutional funding strategies to pay for the transplants and postoperative care.

SUMMARY

In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, which is infeasible for studying VCA outcomes, consensus data sets are needed to document these procedures' value proposition and have them accepted as part of the standard of care. Procedure and immunosuppression protocol variability applied to a small patient cohort necessitates collaborative efforts by field experts to devise creative approaches, such as determining return-on-investment for anatomical subunits, to better understand these transplants' value and impact on patient quality-of-life.

Upper extremity and craniofacial vascularized composite allotransplantation: ethics and immunosuppression

Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is the name most often used to refer to the transplantation of anatomical units composed of multiple tissue types (skin, bone, muscle, tendon, nerves, vessels, etc.) when such transplants do not have the primary purpose of extending life, as is the case in the more familiar field of solid organ transplantation (SOT). A serious interest in VCA developed in the late twentieth century following advances in immunosuppression which had led to significant improvements in short and medium-term survival among SOT recipients. Several ethical concerns have been raised about VCA, with many being connected in one way or another to the limitations, burdens, and risks associated with immunosuppression. This article will focus on upper extremity and craniofacial VCA, beginning with a brief review of the history of VCA including reported outcomes, followed by a discussion of the range of ethical concerns, before exploring in greater detail how immunological issues inform and shape several of the ethical concerns.