Comprehensive outcome analysis in two composite face transplants in Helsinki: Have we succeeded?

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to define what is success after face transplantation (FT). We have previously created a four-component criteria tool to define indications for FT. In this study, we used the same criteria to evaluate the overall outcome of our first two patients after FT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Preoperative analysis of our two bimaxillary FT patients was compared to the results at four and six years post-transplantation. The facial deficiency impact was divided into four categories: (1) anatomical regions, (2) facial functions (mimic muscles, sensation, oral functions, speech, breathing, periorbital functions), (3) esthetics, and (4) impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Immunological status and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: For both patients, near-normal anatomical restoration of almost all the facial regions (except the periorbital and intraoral regions) was achieved. The majority of the facial function parameters improved in both patients (patient 2 to a near-normal level). The esthetic score improved from severely disfigured to impaired (patient 1) and to near to normal (patient 2). Quality of life was severely lowered prior to FT and improved after FT but was still affected. Neither patient has experienced acute rejection episodes during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that our patients have benefitted from FT, and we have succeeded. Time will reveal whether we have achieved long-term success.

Facial Expression after Face Transplant: An International Face Transplant Cohort Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of motor function restoration following face transplant (FT) is difficult, as standardized, bilateral tests are lacking. This study aims to bolster support for software-based analysis through international collaboration. METHODS: FaceReader (Noldus, Wageningen, The Netherlands), a facial expression analysis software, was used to analyze posttransplant videos of eight FT patients from Boston, Massachusetts (range, 1 to 9 years after transplant), two FT patients from Helsinki, Finland (range, 3 to 4 years after transplant), and three FT patients from Antalya, Turkey (range, 6.5 to 8.5 years after transplant). Age-matched healthy controls from respective countries had no history of prior facial procedures. Videos contained patients and controls performing facial expressions evaluated by software analysis using the Facial Action Coding System. Facial movements were assigned intensity score values between 0 (absent) and 1 (fully present). Maximum values were compared with respective healthy controls to calculate percentage restoration. RESULTS: Of 13 FT patients, eight patients were full FT, five patients were partial FT, and two patients were female patients. Compared with healthy controls, the median restoration of motor function was 36.9% (interquartile range, 28.8% to 52.9%) for all patients with FT ( P = 0.151). The median restoration of smile was 37.2% (interquartile range, 31.5% to 52.7%) for all patients with FT ( P = 0.065). When facial nerve coaptation was performed at the distal branch level, average motor function restoration was 42.7% ± 3.61% compared with 27.9% ± 6.71% at the proximal trunk coaptation level ( P = 0.032). Use of interpositional nerve grafts had no influence on motor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Software-based analysis is suitable to assess motor function after FT. International collaboration strengthens outcome data for FT. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

The four category systematic approach for selecting patients for face transplantation.

There is a need for a systematic approach to evaluate patients for potential face transplantation (FT). Ten patients with severe facial defects treated between 1995 and 2017 formed the study group. Data was collected from patient charts and clinical, radiological and laboratory examinations. Facial deficiencies were subdivided into four different categories: anatomical region (10 facial subunits), facial function, aesthetic defect (range 0-9-worst), and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (15D questionnaire, range 0-1). Immunological status and possible contraindications were also evaluated. Defect aetiology consisted of burns (4), ballistic injury (3), blunt injury (1), blast injury (1), and neurofibromatosis type I (1). All patients had central facial deficiencies and 6 patients had 8 to 10 injured facial subunits. All patients had at least partial loss of facial function. The mean aesthetic disfigurement score was 6.4. The median lowering of 15D score was -0.107. None were significantly sensitized although four patients had relative contraindications and one patient had an absolute contraindication for FT. Three patients with a severe overall facial deficiency were considered as potential FT candidates. We herein propose a comprehensive and systematic tool to evaluate potential candidates for FT. This approach includes assessment of 4 key categories: anatomical regions affected, facial function, aesthetics, and HRQoL.

The Second Helsinki Face Transplantation and the World Experience of Revision Surgery During the First Posttransplantation Year.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a review of all surgical interventions performed during the first postoperative year in published face transplantation (FT) cases. In addition, we herein present our second FT patient, a full-face composite FT with an emphasis on surgical revisions after transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review was conducted and resulted in 376 publications of which 33 included reference to surgical interventions during the first post-FT year. For our second FT patient, a thorough review of all medical records was performed. RESULTS: Among the first 41 FTs, 32 FT patients had reports with reference to corrective surgery during the first year (22 composite and 10 soft-tissue FTs). Soft-tissue FTs had a median of 2 procedures (range, 1-8 procedures), and composite FTs, 3 procedures per patient (range, 1-9 procedures). Nearly all early interventions (<1 month) were performed in composite FT patients (anastomotic occlusion, hematoma, sialocele, palatinal dehiscence). The most common late interventions were scar corrections, tissue suspensions, periorbital corrections, osseal and dental procedures, and interventions for palatinal dehiscence and sialocele. Our second FT patient has recovered well and has undergone 3 surgical interventions during the first year. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical interventions are very common during the first postoperative year after FT, and composite FTs are more prone to complications necessitating surgical intervention than soft-tissue FTs. There is a wide variety of complications reflecting the heterogeneity of FT allografts. Corrective surgery in FT patients appears safe with only a few reported complications.