8 research outputs found

    Functional and Psychosocial Outcomes of Hand Transplantation Compared with Prosthetic Fitting in Below-Elbow Amputees:A Multicenter Cohort Study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND:Hand-transplantation and improvements in the field of prostheses opened new frontiers in restoring hand function in below-elbow amputees. Both concepts aim at restoring reliable hand function, however, the indications, advantages and limitations for each treatment must be carefully considered depending on level and extent of amputation. Here we report our findings of a multi-center cohort study comparing hand function and quality-of-life of people with transplanted versus prosthetic hands. METHODS:Hand function in amputees with either transplant or prostheses was tested with Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand measure (DASH). Quality-of-life was compared with the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). RESULTS:Transplanted patients (n = 5) achieved a mean ARAT score of 40.86 ± 8.07 and an average SHAP score of 75.00 ± 11.06. Prosthetic patients (n = 7) achieved a mean ARAT score of 39.00 ± 3.61 and an average SHAP score of 75.43 ± 10.81. There was no significant difference between transplanted and prosthetic hands in ARAT, SHAP or DASH. While quality-of-life metrics were equivocal for four scales of the SF-36, transplanted patients reported significantly higher scores in "role-physical" (p = 0.006), "vitality" (p = 0.008), "role-emotional" (p = 0.035) and "mental-health" (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS:The indications for hand transplantation or prosthetic fitting in below-elbow amputees require careful consideration. As functional outcomes were not significantly different between groups, patient's best interests and the route of least harm should guide treatment. Due to the immunosuppressive side-effects, the indication for allotransplantation must still be restrictive, the best being bilateral amputees

    Existing and evolving bioethical dilemmas, challenges, and controversies in vascularized composite allotransplantation: An international perspective from the Brocher Bioethics Working Group

    No full text
    Early results of hand and face transplants and other grafts such as those of uterus, penis, trachea, larynx, or abdominal wall have confirmed the potential for vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) to restore appearance, anatomy, function, independence, and social integration in patients suffering from devastating tissue deficits untreatable by conventional treatment options. Despite such promise, these novel and complex procedures face challenges and controversies that remain open to discussion and debate. Indeed, many barriers to clinical advancement and negative stakeholder perceptions still exist. The bioethical challenges surrounding VCA include but are not limited to justice and vulnerability of subjects, and their experiences with risks, benefits and outcomes, provider economy of fame, public awareness and attitudes toward transplantation, and policy and regulatory issues shaping progress of the field. The First International Workshop on Bioethical Challenges in Reconstructive Transplantation was organized by the Brocher Foundation in Hermance, Switzerland. VCA professionals representing teams from across the world examined bioethical issues in VCA related to standards for safety, efficacy, feasibility, privacy, confidentiality, and equitability. Key discussion topics from the workshop were included in a survey questionnaire implemented across VCA professionals attending the 13th Congress of International Society of VCA held in Salzburg, Austria. The insights from the Brocher workshop and International Society of VCA survey as presented here could help inform the future development of clinical practice and policy strategies in VCA to ensure value, accessibility, and acceptance of these procedures by potential donors, potential or actual recipients and their families, and providers and payers
    corecore