Search

Background: Cutaneous changes of facial vascularized composite allotransplants (fVCAs) are extensively described in the literature. Parts of the nose, nasal, and oral cavities are included in most fVCAs. Distinctively, the nose and mouth are lined by mucosa. Little is known about the histopathology and complications of the mucosa involved in fVCA patients., Methods: The study constitutes a retrospective cohort study of nine fVCA patients. Medical records were reviewed for information about changes of oral and nasal mucous membranes. Types of mucosal lesions were recorded and analyzed. Uni- and multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were used to assess the odds of developing mucosal inflammation in the presence of clinico-pathologic variables., Results: A total of 186 clinical encounters with examination of oral and nasal mucous membranes were included. Membranes were devoid of clinical pathology in 101 instances (53% of all clinical assessments). Ulcerations/erosions (27%), edema (18%), and erythema (14%) were the most common lesions. Oral lesions affected the lips (58%), buccal mucosa (38%), and palate (5%). Sinonasal processes predominantly affected nasal vestibules and septae. In univariate analysis, sirolimus, skin rejection, and skin Banff grade were associated with the presence of an acute inflammatory mucosal lesion (p<0.05). In multivariate analysis, skin Banff grade and sirolimus were independent predictors of mucosal inflammation., Conclusion: Pathologies of fVCA mucous membranes are more common than previously reported. Mucosal assessment plays an important role in the pleomorphic allograft rejection process evaluation rather than diagnosis and treatment based on cutaneous pathology.  A closer look at the pathophysiology of fVCA mucosal rejection and inflammation is warranted., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Summary: Skin is one of the target tissues of rejection in face transplants and, because of its easy accessibility, has become the gold standard in the diagnosis of rejection. The allograft contains deeper tissues where rejection can occur, but samples cannot be obtained because of difficult access. Deep tissue changes were monitored on computed tomographic scans of the midface in six face transplant recipients with the help of image segmentation. The maxillary sinus was identified as a dynamic anatomical compartment. Observed changes in volume of the aeration relative to the opacification (aeration coefficient) of the maxillary sinus were quantified with the help of image segmentation. Changes in the aeration coefficient as a surrogate of mucosal swelling were quantified and related to time, treatment, and skin rejection grade. Lower aeration coefficients were found only in patients with transplanted maxillary sinus mucosa. Pathologic changes were not observed in face transplant recipients with a native maxillary sinus. The data show that the aeration coefficient was significantly lower at the time of biopsy-proven allograft rejection. Neither mechanical, nor infectious, nor medication side effects sufficiently explain the findings presented herein. The authors' findings are important to consider for clinical management of face transplant patients who receive parts of the sinonasal tract. The authors identify a potential radiologic biomarker of deep tissue allograft rejection. In the future, the proposed methodology might prove useful in monitoring deeper dynamic tissue changes in vascularized composite allografts and might help in designing patient-specific, individualized treatment strategies., Competing Interests: Disclosure:No author states any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Facial vascularized composite allotransplantation (fVCA) presents an established approach to restore form and function of patients with catastrophic facial defects. Skin is one of the target tissues of the rejection process, and due to its easy accessibility has become the gold standard in the diagnosis of rejection. Mucosal rejection frequently occurs; however, the added value of mucosal rejection assessment for patient management is unknown., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of manuscripts listed in the MEDLINE/PubMed and GoogleScholar databases to identify articles that provide data on mucosal rejection following fVCA. For inclusion, papers had to be available as full-text and written in English. Non-VCA studies and animal studies were excluded. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Results: We included 17 articles that described changes in allotransplanted mucosa of fVCAs. These articles yielded data on 168 BANFF graded biopsies of corresponding skin and mucosa biopsies. Rejection grades were consistently higher in mucosal biopsies. Concordance between allograft skin and mucosa biopsy grades increased with an increasing skin-BANFF grade. Mucosa rejection grades were on average lower in the early stages of the posttransplant period (postoperative mo 12)., Conclusions: The mucosa of facial allotransplants is one of the primary targets of rejection. The data indicates that higher-grade skin rejection does not occur in absence of mucosal rejection. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the exact role of mucosal biopsies for fVCA patient management.