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.
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.
Authors: J H Barker; F Allen; M Cunningham; P S Basappa; O Wiggins; J C Banis; R R Alloway; W E Steve; J M Frank Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Wesley N Sivak; Edward H Davidson; Chiaki Komatsu; Yang Li; Maxine R Miller; Joel S Schuman; Mario G Solari; Gerard Magill; Kia M Washington Journal: J Clin Ethics Date: 2016
Authors: Jasper Iske; Yeqi Nian; Ryoichi Maenosono; Max Maurer; Igor M Sauer; Stefan G Tullius Journal: Cell Mol Immunol Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 11.530
Authors: Hani Sinno; Tassos Dionisopoulos; Sumner A Slavin; Ahmed M S Ibrahim; Kevin C Chung; Samuel J Lin Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2014-08-07