Patient expectations in facial transplantation.

Meeting patients' expectations is essential for successful outcomes in reconstructive surgery. In the case of new procedures like facial transplantation that carry with them many unknowns and real, or potential, risk of toxic side effects this becomes especially important. In this study we assessed patient expectations in facial transplantation by surveying individuals with facial disfigurement (n = 34), reconstructive surgeons (n = 45), and controls from the general population (n = 148). Questions focused on quality of life improvement, esthetic and functional outcomes. Student t test was used to compare means of the 3 study groups. All groups projected low quality of life for nontreated disfigured persons, controls responding the most negatively (M = 1.91), followed by disfigured persons (M = 2.91; t = 2.14, P

Plastic surgeon's risk acceptance in facial transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A great deal of ethical debate has accompanied the introduction of facial tissue allotransplantation into the clinical arena. Critics contend that the risks of lifelong immunosuppression do not justify the benefits of this new non-life-saving reconstructive procedure, whereas proponents argue that they do. Absent from this debate are the opinions of individuals with real-life experiences with the risks and benefits associated with this new treatment. METHODS: In this study, the authors question facially disfigured individuals (n = 33) and the reconstructive surgeons who treat them (n = 45), organ transplant recipients (n = 42) and the professionals who manage their immunosuppression medication (n = 37), and healthy volunteer controls (n = 148) to determine the amount of risk they are willing to accept to receive facial tissue allotransplantation. A survey with psychometrically reliable and validated questions was administered to the above five groups, and appropriate statistical analysis was used to analyze and compare the data within and between groups. RESULTS: Of the five groups studied, reconstructive surgeons would accept the least amount of risk for a facial tissue allotransplant, followed by transplant specialists, then kidney transplant recipients, then facially disfigured individuals, and finally healthy control volunteers, who would accept the most amount of risk. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' data indicate that reconstructive surgeons are the least tolerant of risks compared with the other groups studied concerning facial tissue allotransplantation. This is particularly important because they are the primary caregivers to facially disfigured patients and, as such, will be the ones to lead the effort to move this new reconstructive treatment into the clinical arena.

Risk acceptance in laryngeal transplantation.

PURPOSE: Advancements in the fields of head and neck surgery and immunology have paved the way for new quality of life-improving procedures such as larynx transplantation. To quantitatively assess the risks versus benefits in larynx transplantation, we used a questionnaire-based survey (Louisville Instrument For Transplantation [LIFT]) to measure the degree of risk individuals are willing to accept to receive different types of transplantation procedures. METHODS: The LIFT contains 237 standardized questions incorporating standard gamble and time tradeoff outcome measures as well as questions assessing body image perception, depression, self-esteem, optimism, socially desirable responding, and demographics. Respondents were questioned on the extent to which they would trade off specific numbers of life-years, or sustain other costs, in exchange for receiving seven different types of transplant procedures. For this study, we questioned 243 individuals in three study populations with differing life experiences: healthy individuals, organ transplant recipients, and laryngectomees. RESULTS: All populations questioned perceived risks differently based on their varied life experiences and would accept differing degrees of risk for the different transplant procedures. Organ transplant recipients were the most risk-tolerant group, whereas laryngectomees were the least risk-tolerant. CONCLUSIONS: By questioning individuals with life experiences directly relevant to the risks and benefits associated with larynx transplantation, this study provides an empiric basis for assessing risk versus benefit in this new quality of life-improving procedure.

Investigation of risk acceptance in facial transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The surgical techniques necessary to transplant a human face are well established, and the early success of human hand transplants suggests that the immunological hurdles of transplanting human facial tissues have largely been overcome. Therefore, it is the ethical barriers that pose the greatest challenge to performing facial transplantation. At the center of the ethical debate is the question, "Do the risks posed by the life-long immunosuppression that a recipient would have to take justify the benefits of receiving a face transplant?" In this study, the authors answer this question by assessing the degree of risk individuals would be willing to accept to receive a face transplant. METHODS: To quantitatively assess risks versus benefits in facial transplantation, the authors developed the Louisville Instrument for Transplantation, or LIFT, which contains 237 standardized questions. Respondents in three study populations (healthy individuals, n = 150; organ transplant recipients, n = 42; and individuals with facial disfigurement, n = 34) were questioned about the extent to which they would trade off specific numbers of life-years, or sustain other costs, in exchange for receiving seven different transplant procedures. RESULTS: The authors found that the three populations would accept differing degrees of risk for the seven transplant procedures. Organ transplant recipients were the most risk-tolerant group, while facially disfigured individuals were the least risk tolerant. All groups questioned would accept the highest degree of risk to receive a face transplant compared with the six other procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an empirical basis for assessing risk versus benefit in facial transplantation. In doing so, it provides a more solid foundation upon which to introduce this exciting new reconstructive modality into the clinical arena.