Absence of HIV-1 DNA in cartilage from HIV-positive patients

Allogenous cartilage graft versus autogenous cartilage graft in augmentation rhinoplasty: a decade of clinical experience

Cartilage grafts have great value in augmentation rhinoplasty. For most surgeons, an autogenous cartilage graft is the first choice in rhinoplasty because of its resistance to infection and resorption. On the other hand, an allogenous cartilage graft might be preferred over an autogenous graft to avoid additional morbidity and lengthened operating time. Allogenous cartilage grafts not only have the advantage of averting donor site morbidity but also are resistant to infection, resembling autogenous cartilage grafts. The authors present their experience with 41 patients who underwent augmentation rhinoplasty using 22 autogenous and 19 allogenous cartilage grafts between June 1994 and August 2004. For evaluation of adequate augmentation rates, photographic analyses were performed on preoperative, early postoperative, and late postoperative photographs from all the patients. To assess patient satisfaction, the Facial Appearance Sorting Test (FAST) was applied preoperatively and late postoperatively in both groups. These results were compared, and it was concluded that in terms of resorption, there was no difference in the early and late postoperative follow-up data between allogenous and autogenous cartilage grafts. Evaluation of the preoperative and early postoperative photographic outcomes showed statistically significant differences with respect to adequate augmentation rates between the two groups. The FAST scores showed statistically significant differences between preoperative and late postoperative outcomes. There were no infections in the two groups of patients.

Influence of chemical allograft preservation procedures on the human immunodeficiency virus

Since chemically preserved allogenic transplants have an established place in reconstructive procedures, the possibility of transferring the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with these transplants has been intensively discussed. In this study the authors obtained brain and spleen samples from six HIV-infected cadavers and preserved them with Merthiolate, Cialit, and formaldehyde. After preservation, the tissues were examined for proviral HIV-1 DNA (gag, pol, env) using the polymerase chain reaction. Proviral sequences were clearly demonstrated after the preservation procedure. The results of this study indicate that HIV remains in tissues that have been treated with Merthiolate, formaldehyde, or Cialit. Further investigations are necessary to determine if the virus is in an inactivated or activated form. It can be concluded that, because of the possible transmission of HIV by chemically preserved homografts, serologic screening of donors should be mandatory.