Literature DB >> 19881387

The Cleveland Clinic FACES Score: a preliminary assessment tool for identifying the optimal face transplant candidate.

Chad R Gordon1, Maria Siemionow, Kathy Coffman, Daniel Alam, Bijan Eghtesad, James E Zins, Steven Bernard, John Fung, Landon Pryor, Francis Papay.   

Abstract

In lieu of limited resources, our multidisciplinary face transplant team requires a preliminary, supplemental objective grading scheme for identifying the optimal face transplant candidate. Therefore, our objective was to develop an effective method for evaluating "facial deficit," which could also be used in the future for the allocation of limited facial organs, analogous to liver transplantation.Each candidate is screened using our institutional review board-approved protocol's current inclusion/exclusion criteria. Five categories were conceptualized to be of significance in evaluating patients in pursuit of facial allotransplantation as per our recent experience, as determined by the face transplant team. All patients with unfavorable characteristics such as evidence of poor medical compliance, an unsatisfactory psychosocial evaluation by our team's transplant psychiatrist, and/or end-stage organ disease suggestive of significant comorbidity were excluded.This study resulted in a reproducible scoring system allowing our team the unprecedented ability to stratify facial deficit in a standardized fashion. The FACES scores ranged from 10 (minimum) to 60 (maximum). Besides being used as a supplemental prescreening and/or postscreening tool, the FACES score has also provided an unprecedented framework for establishing a face transplant candidate registry within our institution, with the optimal recipients receiving the highest of scores.This FACES score objectively stratifies face transplant candidates for their facial deficit during multiple steps throughout the screening process and affords our institution the means of creating a registry. If substantiated, this supplemental score may ultimately predict successful outcomes, determine optimal utility, and provide insight toward prognosis with respect to facial composite tissue allotransplantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19881387     DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181bd2c86

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Craniofac Surg        ISSN: 1049-2275            Impact factor:   1.046


  5 in total

1.  Psychosocial factors and medication adherence among recipients of vascularized composite allografts.

Authors:  Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Alexander Ferzola; Carisa M Cooney; Jaime T Shores; Wp Andrew Lee; Emily Goldman; Christina L Kaufman; Gerald Brandacher; Dorry L Segev; Macey L Henderson
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2020-07-09

2.  Near-infrared imaging of face transplants: are both pedicles necessary?

Authors:  John T Nguyen; Yoshitomo Ashitate; Vivek Venugopal; Florin Neacsu; Frank Kettenring; John V Frangioni; Sylvain Gioux; Bernard T Lee
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 3.  Clinical Considerations for Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation of the Eye.

Authors:  Edward H Davidson; Eric W Wang; Jenny Y Yu; Juan C Fernandez-Miranda; Dawn J Wang; Yang Li; Maxine Miller; Wesley N Sivak; Debra Bourne; Hongkun Wang; Mario G Solari; Joel S Schuman; Kia M Washington
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.046

Review 4.  Face transplantation: on the verge of becoming clinical routine?

Authors:  Ralf Smeets; Carsten Rendenbach; Moritz Birkelbach; Ahmed Al-Dam; Alexander Gröbe; Henning Hanken; Max Heiland
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Recognizing Emotional Expression as an Outcome Measure After Face Transplant.

Authors:  Miguel I Dorante; Branislav Kollar; Doha Obed; Valentin Haug; Sebastian Fischer; Bohdan Pomahac
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.