A Provider Perspective of Psychosocial Predictors of Upper-Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation Success

Abstract Background Tendon transfer in the upper extremity represents a powerful tool in the armamentarium of a reconstructive surgeon in the setting of irreparable nerve injury or the anatomic loss of key portions of the muscle-tendon unit. The concept uses the redundancy/expendability of tendons by utilizing a nonessential tendon to restore the function of a lost or nonfunctional muscle-tendon unit of the upper extremity. This article does not aim to perform a comprehensive review of tendon transfers. Instead it is meant to familiarize the reader with salient historical features, common applications in the upper limb, and provide the reader with some technical tips, which may facilitate a successful tendon transfer. Learning Objectives (1) Familiarize the reader with some aspects of tendon transfer history. (2) Identify principles of tendon transfers. (3) Identify important preoperative considerations. (4) Understand the physiology of the muscle-tendon unit and the Blix curve. (5) Identify strategies for setting tension during a tendon transfer and rehabilitation strategies. Design This study was designed to review the relevant current literature and provide an expert opinion. Conclusions Tendon transfers have evolved from polio to tetraplegia to war and represent an extremely powerful technique to correct neurologic and musculotendinous deficits in a variety of patients affected by trauma, peripheral nerve palsies, cerebral palsy, stroke, and inflammatory arthritis. In the contemporary setting, these very same principles have also been very successfully applied to vascularized composite allotransplantation in the upper limb.

Download Full-text

Perceived Success in Upper-Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Qualitative Study

The Journal Of Hand Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.01.001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sarah E. Kinsley ◽

Nora K. Lenhard ◽

Emma C. Lape ◽

Sejal B. Shah ◽

Robert R. Edwards ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Study ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation ◽

Perceived Success

Download Full-text

Evolution of the rat hind limb transplant as an experimental model of vascularized composite allotransplantation: Approaches and advantages

SAGE Open Medicine ◽

10.1177/2050312120968721 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 205031212096872

Author(s):

Yoram Y Fleissig ◽

Jason E Beare ◽

Amanda J LeBlanc ◽

Christina L Kaufman

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Hind Limb ◽

Large Body ◽

Surgical Techniques ◽

Experimental Models ◽

Tissue Loss ◽

Large Animal ◽

Solid Organ ◽

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation ◽

Large Animal Models

As clinical experience with surgical techniques and immunosuppression in vascularized composite allotransplantation recipients has accumulated, vascularized composite allotransplantation for hand and face have become standard of care in some countries for select patients who have experienced catastrophic tissue loss. Experience to date suggests that clinical vascularized composite allotransplantation grafts undergo the same processes of allograft rejection as solid organ grafts. Nonetheless, there are some distinct differences, especially with respect to the immunologic influence of the skin and how the graft is affected by environmental and traumatic insults. Understanding the mechanisms around these similarities and differences has the potential to not only improve vascularized composite allotransplantation outcomes but also outcomes for all types of transplants and to contribute to our understanding of how complex systems of immunity and function work together. A distinct disadvantage in the study of upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation recipients is the low number of clinical transplants performed each year. As upper extremity transplantation is a quality of life rather than a lifesaving transplant, these numbers are not likely to increase significantly until the risks of systemic immunosuppression can be reduced. As such, experimental models of vascularized composite allotransplantation are essential to test hypotheses regarding unique characteristics of graft rejection and acceptance of vascularized composite allotransplantation allografts. Rat hind limb vascularized composite allotransplantation models have been widely used to address these questions and provide essential proof-of-concept findings which can then be extended to other experimental models, including mice and large animal models, as new concepts are translated to the clinic. Here, we review the large body of rat hind limb vascularized composite allotransplantation models in the literature, with a focus on the various surgical models that have been developed, contrasting the characteristics of the specific model and how they have been applied. We hope that this review will assist other researchers in choosing the most appropriate rat hind limb transplantation model for their scientific interests.

Download Full-text

Upper extremity and craniofacial vascularized composite allotransplantation: ethics and immunosuppression

Emerging Topics in Life Sciences ◽

10.1042/etls20190060 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (6) ◽

pp. 681-686

Author(s):

James Benedict ◽

Gerard Magill

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Solid Organ Transplantation ◽

Solid Organ ◽

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation ◽

Medium Term ◽

Term Survival ◽

Ethical Concerns ◽

History Of ◽

Late Twentieth ◽

Late Twentieth Century

Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is the name most often used to refer to the transplantation of anatomical units composed of multiple tissue types (skin, bone, muscle, tendon, nerves, vessels, etc.) when such transplants do not have the primary purpose of extending life, as is the case in the more familiar field of solid organ transplantation (SOT). A serious interest in VCA developed in the late twentieth century following advances in immunosuppression which had led to significant improvements in short and medium-term survival among SOT recipients. Several ethical concerns have been raised about VCA, with many being connected in one way or another to the limitations, burdens, and risks associated with immunosuppression. This article will focus on upper extremity and craniofacial VCA, beginning with a brief review of the history of VCA including reported outcomes, followed by a discussion of the range of ethical concerns, before exploring in greater detail how immunological issues inform and shape several of the ethical concerns.

Download Full-text

Pediatric Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

10.1201/9780429260179-5 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 75-97

Author(s):

Kevin J. Zuo ◽

Anna Gold ◽

Randi Zlotnik Shaul ◽

Emily S. Ho ◽

Gregory H. Borschel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation

Download Full-text

Psychosocial Predictors of Upper Extremity Transplantation Outcomes

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open ◽

10.1097/gox.0000000000003133 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (9) ◽

pp. e3133

Author(s):

Sarah E. Kinsley ◽

Shuang Song ◽

Palmina Petruzzo ◽

Claudia Sardu ◽

Elena Losina ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Psychosocial Predictors ◽

Transplantation Outcomes

Download Full-text

Combining Values

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2002.marapr01 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 1-4, 12 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham

Keyword(s):

Lower Extremity ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Evaluation Method ◽

Proximal Phalanx ◽

Common Error ◽

The Third ◽

Whole Person ◽

Impairment Ratings ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract To account for the effects of multiple impairments, evaluating physicians must provide a summary value that combines multiple impairments so the whole person impairment is equal to or less than the sum of all the individual impairment values. A common error is to add values that should be combined and typically results in an inflated rating. The Combined Values Chart in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition, includes instructions that guide physicians about combining impairment ratings. For example, impairment values within a region generally are combined and converted to a whole person permanent impairment before combination with the results from other regions (exceptions include certain impairments of the spine and extremities). When they combine three or more values, physicians should select and combine the two lowest values; this value is combined with the third value to yield the total value. Upper extremity impairment ratings are combined based on the principle that a second and each succeeding impairment applies not to the whole unit (eg, whole finger) but only to the part that remains (eg, proximal phalanx). Physicians who combine lower extremity impairments usually use only one evaluation method, but, if more than one method is used, the physician should use the Combined Values Chart.

Download Full-text

Impairment Tutorial: Functionally Limiting Upper Extremity Pain: Controversies in Impairment Rating

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2003.sepoct02 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (5) ◽

pp. 4-12

Author(s):

Lorne Direnfeld ◽

James Talmage ◽

Christopher Brigham

Keyword(s):

Upper Extremity ◽

Radicular Pain ◽

Illness Behavior ◽

Orthopedic Surgeon ◽

First Case ◽

Clinical Presentations ◽

Whole Person ◽

Physical Examinations ◽

Upper Extremity Impairment ◽

The Individual

Abstract This article was prompted by the submission of two challenging cases that exemplify the decision processes involved in using the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides). In both cases, the physical examinations were normal with no evidence of illness behavior, but, based on their histories and clinical presentations, the patients reported credible symptoms attributable to specific significant injuries. The dilemma for evaluators was whether to adhere to the AMA Guides, as written, or to attempt to rate impairment in these rare cases. In the first case, the evaluating neurologist used alternative approaches to define impairment based on the presence of thoracic outlet syndrome and upper extremity pain, as if there were a nerve injury. An orthopedic surgeon who evaluated the case did not base impairment on pain and used the upper extremity chapters in the AMA Guides. The impairment ratings determined using either the nervous system or upper extremity chapters of the AMA Guides resulted in almost the same rating (9% vs 8% upper extremity impairment), and either value converted to 5% whole person permanent impairment. In the second case, the neurologist evaluated the individual for neuropathic pain (9% WPI), and the orthopedic surgeon rated the patient as Diagnosis-related estimates Cervical Category II for nonverifiable radicular pain (5% to 8% WPI).

Download Full-text

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.janfeb01 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 1-3

Author(s):

Robert H. Haralson

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Lower Extremity ◽

Range Of Motion ◽

Upper Extremity ◽

Spinal Cord Injuries ◽

Clinical Findings ◽

Fourth Edition ◽

Treatment Results ◽

Standard Terminology ◽

Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Download Full-text