Clinical Application of Mathematical Long Bone Ratios to Calculate Appropriate Donor Limb Lengths in Bilateral Upper Limb Transplantation.

Background: Limited methods exist to aid in deciding the appropriate donor limb lengths in bilateral upper limb amputees qualifying for vascularized composite allotransplantation. We hypothesized mathematical equations could be created using long bone length ratios, and applied to radiographs, to approximate the patient's limb length prior to amputation. Methods: A data set of 30 skeletons' unilateral upper limb long bones measured using osteometric board and calipers was used. Anatomic segment ratios were calculated based on humerus length after multivariate linear regression analysis. For clinical application testing, 5 cadavers' upper limbs were radiographed. Radiographic bone lengths were then measured along the long axis of each long bone. These measured radiographic lengths were then compared with the predicted bone lengths, generated from the skeleton data set ratios, for each cadaver. Results: The chi-square goodness-of-fit test showed excellent fit (P < .01) between the predicted and radiographically measured lengths for the 5 cadavers, and interobserver measurements showed no statistical difference. Depending on the cadaver, percent error in total limb length predicted to measure ranged from 0.9% to 2.7%. The variables to multiply an individual humerus length to calculate a given anatomic segment thus proved to be effective. Conclusions: If a bilateral upper limb amputee has 1 intact humerus, ratios to the humerus length can be reliably applied to calculate the preamputation limb length based on the patient's radiographic humerus length. These formulas are indicated for finding the appropriate limb lengths, and smaller anatomic segments, for donor-recipient matching in upper limb transplantation.

Outcomes after hand and upper extremity transplantation.

Hand and upper extremity transplantation (HUET) has emerged as the most frequently performed reconstructive procedure in the burgeoning field of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA). VCA refers to a form of transplant with multiple tissue types that represents a viable treatment option for devastating injuries where conventional reconstruction would be unable to restore form and function. As hand transplantation becomes increasingly more common, discussions on advantages and disadvantages of the procedure seem to intensify. Despite encouraging functional outcomes, current immunosuppressive regimens with their deleterious side-effect profile remain a major concern for a life-changing but not life-saving type of transplant. In addition, a growing number of recipients with progressively longer follow-up prompt the need to investigate potential long-term sequelae, such as chronic rejection. This review will discuss the current state of HUET, summarizing outcome data on graft survival, motor and sensory function, as well as immunosuppressive treatment. The implications of these findings for VCA in terms of achievements and challenges ahead will then be discussed.

Hand Transplantation: Evolution of a Personal Outlook.

The field of vascularized composite allotransplantation-combining advances in reconstructive surgery, transplantation, and immunology-offers great promise for patients with heretofore unsolvable problems. In the last 30 years, hand transplantation has progressed through the phases of being a research subject, a controversial clinical procedure, a more widely accepted and expanding field, and now a promising endeavor undergoing refined indications. Although many lessons have been learned, few procedures in the author's experience have been as life-transformative in restoring the body image, motor and sensory functions, activities of daily living, and personal autonomy as successful hand transplantation.

Hand transplant surgery.

In September 1998 the world's first hand transplant was performed in Lyon, France. A new era in reconstructive surgery had begun. This case highlighted the potential for composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA). While CTA is not a new technique, it unifies the principles of reconstructive microsurgery and transplant surgery, achieving the goals of absolute correction of a defect with anatomically and physiologically identical tissue with none of the issues of donor site morbidity associated with autologous tissue transfer. The adoption of this technique for non-life threatening conditions to improve quality of life has generated a number of new ethical considerations. Additionally, the prominence of transplanted hands has led to much discussion around the issue of body identity and psychological assessment of potential recipients. This is fundamental to any hand transplantation programme. With the advent of hand transplantation dawning in the UK, we review the many ethical considerations that contribute to this new frontier.

Upper extremity limb loss: functional restoration from prosthesis and targeted reinnervation to transplantation.

For several decades, prosthetic use was the only option to restore function after upper extremity amputation. Recent years have seen advances in the field of prosthetics. Such advances include prosthetic design and function, activity-specific devices, improved aesthetics, and adjunctive surgical procedures to improve both form and function. Targeted reinnervation is one exciting advance that allows for more facile and more intuitive function with prosthetics following proximal amputation. Another remarkable advance that holds great promise in nearly all fields of medicine is the transplantation of composite tissue, such as hand and face transplantation. Hand transplantation holds promise as the ultimate restorative procedure that can provide form, function, and sensation. However, this procedure still comes with a substantial cost in terms of the rehabilitation and toxic immunosuppression and should be limited to carefully selected patients who have failed prosthetic reconstruction. Hand transplantation and prosthetic reconstruction should not be viewed as competing options. Rather, they are two treatment options with different risk/benefit profiles and different indications and, hence vastly different implications.