Principles of face transplant revision: Beyond primary repair

Raja Mohan, Mark Fisher, Amir Dorafshar, Michael Sosin, Branko Bojovic, Dheeraj Gandhi, Nicholas Iliff, Eduardo D. Rodriguez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Over the past decade, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation has earned its place at the top of the reconstructive ladder. However, as in free tissue transfer, postoperative revisions are necessary to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic results. Although revising a facial vascularized composite allotransplantation may potentially risk the integrity of the graft, the authors believe that the advantages of appropriately chosen revisions may provide great benefit. Methods: Following the most extensive face transplant performed to date, revisions were performed in two surgical procedures. The first included a Le Fort III osteotomy for malocclusion correction, midface tissue resuspension and coronal eyebrow lift to correct soft-tissue ptosis, and submental lipectomy. Bilateral blepharoplasty to minimize tissue excess and scar revision were performed at a subsequent operation. Cephalometric analysis and angiography were performed and blink data collected. Results: Before transplantation, the patient was in class III malocclusion. After transplantation, class I occlusion was obtained; however, the patient subsequently returned to class III occlusion. After skeletal revision, class I occlusion was obtained; however, a corneal blink deficit was noted. Eight months after skeletal revision, blink had improved spontaneously. Angiography revealed collateralization providing retrograde flow from the flap to the recipient. Conclusions: Although the necessity for revisions is clear, determining which revisions to safely perform and their timing and execution have not been explored. The authors address four distinct categories of revisions, including soft-tissue revision, hard-tissue mismatch, and craniofacial skeleton and dental occlusion. The authors illustrate the success of these revisions and assess their advantages, disadvantages, and relative risk.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1295-1304
Number of pages10
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume134
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Facial Transplantation
Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation
Malocclusion
Angiography
Transplantation
Cephalometry
Le Fort Osteotomy
Blepharoplasty
Dental Occlusion
Eyebrows
Lipectomy
Esthetics
Skeleton
Cicatrix
Transplants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Mohan, R., Fisher, M., Dorafshar, A., Sosin, M., Bojovic, B., Gandhi, D., ... Rodriguez, E. D. (2014). Principles of face transplant revision: Beyond primary repair. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 134(6), 1295-1304. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760

Principles of face transplant revision : Beyond primary repair. / Mohan, Raja; Fisher, Mark; Dorafshar, Amir; Sosin, Michael; Bojovic, Branko; Gandhi, Dheeraj; Iliff, Nicholas; Rodriguez, Eduardo D.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 134, No. 6, 2014, p. 1295-1304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mohan, R, Fisher, M, Dorafshar, A, Sosin, M, Bojovic, B, Gandhi, D, Iliff, N & Rodriguez, ED 2014, 'Principles of face transplant revision: Beyond primary repair', Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 134, no. 6, pp. 1295-1304. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760
Mohan R, Fisher M, Dorafshar A, Sosin M, Bojovic B, Gandhi D et al. Principles of face transplant revision: Beyond primary repair. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2014;134(6):1295-1304. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760
Mohan, Raja ; Fisher, Mark ; Dorafshar, Amir ; Sosin, Michael ; Bojovic, Branko ; Gandhi, Dheeraj ; Iliff, Nicholas ; Rodriguez, Eduardo D. / Principles of face transplant revision : Beyond primary repair. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 134, No. 6. pp. 1295-1304.
@article{c555b9623e584c9cba7aa3869d782c27,
title = "Principles of face transplant revision: Beyond primary repair",
abstract = "Background: Over the past decade, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation has earned its place at the top of the reconstructive ladder. However, as in free tissue transfer, postoperative revisions are necessary to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic results. Although revising a facial vascularized composite allotransplantation may potentially risk the integrity of the graft, the authors believe that the advantages of appropriately chosen revisions may provide great benefit. Methods: Following the most extensive face transplant performed to date, revisions were performed in two surgical procedures. The first included a Le Fort III osteotomy for malocclusion correction, midface tissue resuspension and coronal eyebrow lift to correct soft-tissue ptosis, and submental lipectomy. Bilateral blepharoplasty to minimize tissue excess and scar revision were performed at a subsequent operation. Cephalometric analysis and angiography were performed and blink data collected. Results: Before transplantation, the patient was in class III malocclusion. After transplantation, class I occlusion was obtained; however, the patient subsequently returned to class III occlusion. After skeletal revision, class I occlusion was obtained; however, a corneal blink deficit was noted. Eight months after skeletal revision, blink had improved spontaneously. Angiography revealed collateralization providing retrograde flow from the flap to the recipient. Conclusions: Although the necessity for revisions is clear, determining which revisions to safely perform and their timing and execution have not been explored. The authors address four distinct categories of revisions, including soft-tissue revision, hard-tissue mismatch, and craniofacial skeleton and dental occlusion. The authors illustrate the success of these revisions and assess their advantages, disadvantages, and relative risk.",
author = "Raja Mohan and Mark Fisher and Amir Dorafshar and Michael Sosin and Branko Bojovic and Dheeraj Gandhi and Nicholas Iliff and Rodriguez, {Eduardo D.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "134",
pages = "1295--1304",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Principles of face transplant revision

T2 - Beyond primary repair

AU - Mohan, Raja

AU - Fisher, Mark

AU - Dorafshar, Amir

AU - Sosin, Michael

AU - Bojovic, Branko

AU - Gandhi, Dheeraj

AU - Iliff, Nicholas

AU - Rodriguez, Eduardo D.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background: Over the past decade, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation has earned its place at the top of the reconstructive ladder. However, as in free tissue transfer, postoperative revisions are necessary to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic results. Although revising a facial vascularized composite allotransplantation may potentially risk the integrity of the graft, the authors believe that the advantages of appropriately chosen revisions may provide great benefit. Methods: Following the most extensive face transplant performed to date, revisions were performed in two surgical procedures. The first included a Le Fort III osteotomy for malocclusion correction, midface tissue resuspension and coronal eyebrow lift to correct soft-tissue ptosis, and submental lipectomy. Bilateral blepharoplasty to minimize tissue excess and scar revision were performed at a subsequent operation. Cephalometric analysis and angiography were performed and blink data collected. Results: Before transplantation, the patient was in class III malocclusion. After transplantation, class I occlusion was obtained; however, the patient subsequently returned to class III occlusion. After skeletal revision, class I occlusion was obtained; however, a corneal blink deficit was noted. Eight months after skeletal revision, blink had improved spontaneously. Angiography revealed collateralization providing retrograde flow from the flap to the recipient. Conclusions: Although the necessity for revisions is clear, determining which revisions to safely perform and their timing and execution have not been explored. The authors address four distinct categories of revisions, including soft-tissue revision, hard-tissue mismatch, and craniofacial skeleton and dental occlusion. The authors illustrate the success of these revisions and assess their advantages, disadvantages, and relative risk.

AB - Background: Over the past decade, facial vascularized composite allotransplantation has earned its place at the top of the reconstructive ladder. However, as in free tissue transfer, postoperative revisions are necessary to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic results. Although revising a facial vascularized composite allotransplantation may potentially risk the integrity of the graft, the authors believe that the advantages of appropriately chosen revisions may provide great benefit. Methods: Following the most extensive face transplant performed to date, revisions were performed in two surgical procedures. The first included a Le Fort III osteotomy for malocclusion correction, midface tissue resuspension and coronal eyebrow lift to correct soft-tissue ptosis, and submental lipectomy. Bilateral blepharoplasty to minimize tissue excess and scar revision were performed at a subsequent operation. Cephalometric analysis and angiography were performed and blink data collected. Results: Before transplantation, the patient was in class III malocclusion. After transplantation, class I occlusion was obtained; however, the patient subsequently returned to class III occlusion. After skeletal revision, class I occlusion was obtained; however, a corneal blink deficit was noted. Eight months after skeletal revision, blink had improved spontaneously. Angiography revealed collateralization providing retrograde flow from the flap to the recipient. Conclusions: Although the necessity for revisions is clear, determining which revisions to safely perform and their timing and execution have not been explored. The authors address four distinct categories of revisions, including soft-tissue revision, hard-tissue mismatch, and craniofacial skeleton and dental occlusion. The authors illustrate the success of these revisions and assess their advantages, disadvantages, and relative risk.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922481398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922481398&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000760

M3 - Article

C2 - 25255115

AN - SCOPUS:84922481398

VL - 134

SP - 1295

EP - 1304

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 6

ER -