Face Transplants: An International History

Face transplants have attracted global media and public attention since the 1990s. The first recipient, Isabelle Dinoire, found herself at the centre of a dramatic episode of surgical innovation after her transplant was announced in November 2005. Subsequently 47 transplants have been conducted worldwide (including two retransplants) up to August 2020, and these have been accompanied by extensive news coverage. Hundreds of papers on the medical, physical, psychological, and ethical implications of the procedure have been published in the scientific literature, disproportionate to the incidence of the procedure. Face transplants have also featured in films, television, and fiction, indicating an appetite for interrogating the social and interpersonal implications of facial difference. However, the history of facial transplantation has largely been unexplored. This article provides the first international history of the global development and implementation of facial transplantation. Using published medical literature, media coverage, and oral history interviews with key participants as source material, it situates the experimental transplant in national, institutional, and professional contexts. It argues that charting the history of face transplants over a 30 year period from initial discussions in 1991 to the present provides a valuable case study through which to consider surgical cultures and discourses of medical innovation in the twenty-first century.

Sensitization and Desensitization in Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is a field under research and has emerged as an alternative option for the repair of severe disfiguring defects that result from severe tissue loss in a selected group of patients. Lifelong immunosuppressive therapy, immunosuppression associated complications, and the effects of the host immune response in the graft are major concerns in this type of quality-of-life transplant. The initial management of extensive soft tissue injury can lead to the development of anti-HLA antibodies through injury-related factors, transfusion and cadaveric grafting. The role of antibody-mediated rejection, donor-specific antibody (DSA) formation and graft rejection in the context of VCA still remain poorly understood. The most common antigenic target of preexisting alloantibodies are MHC mismatches, though recognition of ABO incompatible antigens, minor histocompatibility complexes and endothelial cells has also been shown to contribute to rejection. Mechanistically, alloantibody-mediated tissue damage occurs primarily through complement fixation as well as through antibody-dependent cellular toxicity. If DSA exist, activation of complement and coagulation cascades can result in vascular thrombosis and infarction and thus rejection and graft loss. Both preexisting DSA but especially de-novo DSA are currently considered as main contributors to late allograft injury and graft failure. Desensitization protocols are currently being developed for VCA, mainly including removal of alloantibodies whereas treatment of established antibody-mediated rejection is achieved through high dose intravenous immunoglobulins. The long-term efficacy of such therapies in sensitized VCA recipients is currently unknown. The current evidence base for sensitizing events and outcomes in reconstructive transplantation is limited. However, current data show that VCA transplantation has been performed in the setting of HLA-sensitization.

First two bilateral hand transplantations in India (Part 4): Immediate post-operative care, immunosuppression protocol and monitoring

Introduction:

Being able to counter immune-mediated rejection has for decades been the single largest obstacle for the progress of vascular composite allotransplantation (VCA). The human immune system performs the key role of differentiating the 'self ' from the 'non-self '. This, although is quintessential to eliminate or resist infections, also resists the acceptance of an allograft which it promptly recognises as 'non-self'.

Materials and Methods:

Pre-operative evaluation of the recipient evaluation included immunological assessment in the form of panel reactive antibodies (PRA), human leucocyte antigen (HLA) typing, donor-specific antibody detection assays (DSA) and complement-dependent cytotoxicity assays (CDC). Induction immunosuppression was by thymoglobulin and the maintenance by the standard triple-drug therapy.

Results:

Both the recipients were managed by the standard triple drug therapy and have had only minor episodes of rejections thus far which have been managed appropriately.

Discussion:

Induction immunosuppression was by thymoglobulin and the maintenance by the standard triple-drug therapy. Various groups have tried various other formulations and regimes as well.

Conclusion:

A comprehensive plan has to be drawn up for immunological screening, selection and the post-operative immunosuppressant usage. The ultimate goal of these immunosuppression modalities is to achieve a state of donor-specific tolerance.