An economic analysis of hand transplantation in the United States

Crowdsourcing Opinions and Awareness of Upper Extremity Transplantation in the United States

Introduction As of 2008, the United States had 41,000 people living with upper extremity amputation. This number is projected to reach 300,000 by 2050. Human upper extremity transplantation (HUET) may become a more common treatment option with the potential to significantly improve the quality of life for certain amputees. Awareness and opinions regarding HUET among Americans, particularly in Veterans/Service Members (VSM) affiliates, are largely unknown. Materials and methods We administered a survey on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers. Eligible participants were US citizens aged ≥18 years; MTurk worker selection targeted workers who self-reported being a VSM. We used descriptive statistics to summarize study findings and Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests for between-group comparisons. Results The survey was completed by 764 individuals, 604 (79.1%) of whom reported being aware of HUET. Among those familiar versus unfamiliar, a significantly higher proportion were aged ≤35 years (n=385, 64.0% vs. n=86, 53.7%; p=0.017), employed (n=523, 86.6% vs. n=114, 71.3%; p<0.001), and aware of their religion's stance on organ/tissue donation (n=341, 54.5% vs. n=62, 38.8%; p<0.001). Amputees and/or respondents related to an amputee were more likely to be aware of HUET than individuals who were amputation naive (n=211, 90.6% vs. n=393, 74.0%, respectively; p<0.001), as were individuals with a personal or familial military affiliation (n=286, 85.4% with vs. n=318, 74.1% with no affiliation; p<0.001). The most reported HUET information sources were digital media (n=157, 31.2%) and internet (n=137, 27.2%). Conclusions Our survey of MTurk workers found greater awareness of HUET among individuals with a VSM or amputee connection. Our additional findings that the internet and academic sources, such as journals or reputable medical publications, were respondents' preferred sources of HUET information emphasize the importance of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) centers' involvement in creating accurate and accessible content to help educate the public about this treatment.

The Future of Microsurgery: Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation and Engineering Vascularized Tissue

Background

Microsurgical techniques have revolutionized the field of reconstructive surgery and are the mainstay for complex soft tissue reconstruction. However, their limitations have promoted the development of viable alternatives. This article seeks to explore technologies that have the potential of revolutionizing microsurgical reconstruction as it is currently known, reflect on current and future vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) practices, as well as describe the basic science within emerging technologies and their potential translational applications.

Methods

A literature review was performed of the technologies that may represent the future of microsurgery: vascularized tissue engineering (VCA) and flap-specific tissue engineering.

Results

VCA has shown great promise and has already been employed in the clinical setting (especially in face and limb transplantation). Immunosuppression, logistics, cost, and regulatory pathways remain barriers to overcome to make it freely available. Vascularized and flap-specific tissue engineering remain a laboratory reality but have the potential to supersede VCA. The capability of creating an off-the-shelf free flap matching the required tissue, size, and shape is a significant advantage. However, these technologies are still at the early stage and require significant advancement before they can be translated into the clinical setting.

Conclusion

VCA, vascularized tissue engineering, and flap-specific bioengineering represent possible avenues for the evolution of current microsurgical techniques. The next decade will elucidate which of these three strategies will evolve into a tangible translational option and hopefully bring a paradigm shift of reconstructive surgery.

Vascularized Composite Allograft Versus Prosthetic for Reconstruction After Facial and Hand Trauma: Comparing Cost, Complications, and Long-term Outcome

ABSTRACT

In the past decade, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has become clinical reality for reconstruction after face and hand trauma. It offers patients the unique opportunity to regain form and function in a way that had only been achieved with traditional reconstruction or with the use of prostheses. On the other hand, prostheses for facial and hand reconstruction have continued to evolve over the years and, in many cases, represent the primary option for patients after hand and face trauma. We compared the cost, associated complications, and long-term outcomes of VCA with prostheses for reconstruction of the face and hand/upper extremity. Ultimately, VCA and prostheses represent 2 different reconstructive options with distinct benefit profiles and associated limitations and should ideally not be perceived as competing choices. Our work adds a valuable component to the general framework guiding the decision to offer VCA or prostheses for reconstruction after face and upper extremity trauma.

What is needed to ensure long-term sustainability for the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation?

The field of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has demonstrated remarkable advances since its inception with some excellent long-term results in a variety of graft types. However, unlike solid organ transplantation, it has yet to become mainstream. We therefore discuss strategies on ensuring long-term sustainability by addressing continued clinical developments of VCA to improve the risk-to-benefit balance, importance of public support, improved policy and financial support, and need for a bridge to the future of transplant surgery. There has been headway on all fronts and collaboration among the VCA centers for centralization of data and incorporation of patient voices will be essential for continued progress.

Methods of ex vivo analysis of tissue status in vascularized composite allografts

Vascularized composite allotransplantation can improve quality of life and restore functionality. However, the complex tissue composition of vascularized composite allografts (VCAs) presents unique clinical challenges that increase the likelihood of transplant rejection. Under prolonged static cold storage, highly damage-susceptible tissues such as muscle and nerve undergo irreversible degradation that may render allografts non-functional. Skin-containing VCA elicits an immunogenic response that increases the risk of recipient allograft rejection. The development of quantitative metrics to evaluate VCAs prior to and following transplantation are key to mitigating allograft rejection. Correspondingly, a broad range of bioanalytical methods have emerged to assess the progression of VCA rejection and characterize transplantation outcomes. To consolidate the current range of relevant technologies and expand on potential for development, methods to evaluate ex vivo VCA status are herein reviewed and comparatively assessed. The use of implantable physiological status monitoring biochips, non-invasive bioimpedance monitoring to assess edema, and deep learning algorithms to fuse disparate inputs to stratify VCAs are identified.

Education for patients with limb loss or absence: Aging, overuse concerns, and patient treatment knowledge gaps

The goals of vascular composite allotransplantation (VCA) for hand are to maximize functional status and psychosocial wellbeing and to improve quality of life. Candidates are carefully vetted by transplant programs through an extensive evaluation process to exclude those patients with contraindications and to select those that are most likely to attain functional or quality of life benefit from transplant. Patient choice for any treatment, however, requires that candidates be able to understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives before choosing to proceed. This study aimed to understand patients’ knowledge and perceptions about treatment options for hand loss, including hand transplant. This study will be used to inform a standardized education approach and develop conversation aids for use by clinicians and patients throughout the treatment decision process. Ten individuals who had experienced hand amputation or had congenital limb loss were interviewed to better understand previous and current decisions about treatment, experiences in adjusting to their treatment, and perceptions about hand VCA. From this qualitative interview data, four findings emerged: (1) knowledge and education around VCA as a treatment option; (2) adaptation of individuals with limb loss; (3) fear of risk associated with transplantation; (4) issues of aging and overuse injuries to existing limbs. Results suggests that there is opportunity for expanding education about all treatment options for patients with new loss, long-term loss, and congenital limb loss. Establishing a baseline of knowledge about all options–prosthetics, rehabilitative strategies, and VCA—can help patients evaluate their values and goals of treatment. Issues associated with aging, including overuse and injury, and adaptability over the life course should be included in considerations about treatment choices. Data indicate the need for routinely assessing patient preferences about treatment choice so patients can plan for their future as they adapt and age and as technology for treatments change. To assure that thorough information is provided for current and future decision-making, education about treatment choices and selection procedures for VCA should be standardized.

Special Considerations for Secondary Surgery After Upper Extremity Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity (UE) transplantation is a complex undertaking that may require emergent or elective secondary surgery (SS) days to years following transplant. Various patient and transplantation may help determine what SS is needed. In this study, we characterize the SS needed by our UE transplant patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 6 patients who underwent hand and UE transplantation by one of the authors. Transplantation and SS details were obtained from medical records. Hand and arm function was quantified both subjectively (patient-reports) and objectively (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score; Carroll test; Action Research Arm Tests; Box and Block test).

RESULTS

Six patients underwent transplantation for a total of 10 transplanted limbs. Five transplants were performed below and 5 above the elbow. Mean time post-transplantation at last follow-up was 5 years (range: 1-9 years). In all, 66.7% of the patients required SS: total 7 surgeries comprising 13 procedures. The most common procedures were to improve hand function-nerve decompressions and tendon transfer, both in above-elbow transplant. Both patients showed a mean improvement of 15 points on Carroll scores. One above-elbow transplant had a brachioplasty for excess skin and another had a hematoma evacuation immediately after transplantation. Procedures in the below-elbow transplants included multiple incision and drainages for a septic wrist and an open reduction and internal fixation for a forearm fracture.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving UE transplantation often require one or more secondary procedures which may vary with level of transplantation. Secondary surgery should be an important aspect of pretransplant planning and cost-effectiveness determinations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Bionic Prostheses: The Emerging Alternative to Vascularised Composite Allotransplantation of the Limb

Twenty years have surpassed since the first vascularised composite allotransplantation (VCA) of the upper limb. This is an opportunity to reflect on the position of VCA as the gold standard in limb reconstruction. The paucity of recipients, tentative clinical outcomes, and insufficient scientific progress question whether VCA will remain a viable treatment option for the growing numbers of amputees. Bionic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. The prospect of widely available, affordable, safely applied prostheses with long-standing functional benefit is appealing. Progress in the field stems from the contributions made by engineering, electronic, computing and material science research groups. This review will address the ongoing reservations surrounding VCA whilst acknowledging the future impact of bionic technology as a realistic alternative for limb reconstruction.

Hand Transplants, Daily Functioning, and the Human Capacity for Limb Regeneration

Unlike some of our invertebrate and vertebrate cousins with the capacity to regenerate limbs after traumatic loss, humans do not have the ability to regrow arms or legs lost to injury or disease. For the millions of people worldwide who have lost a limb after birth, the primary route to regaining function and minimizing future complications is via rehabilitation, prosthetic devices, assistive aids, health system robustness, and social safety net structures. The majority of limbs lost are lower limbs (legs), with diabetes and vascular disorders being significant causal contributors. Upper limbs (arms) are lost primarily because of trauma; digits and hands are the most common levels of loss. Even if much of the arm remains intact, upper limb amputation significantly impacts function, largely due to the loss of the hand. Human hands are marvels of evolution and permit a dexterity that enables a wide variety of function not readily replaced by devices. It is not surprising, therefore, for some individuals, dissatisfaction with available prosthetic options coupled with remarkable advances in hand surgery techniques is resulting in patients undertaking the rigors of a hand transplantation. While not “regeneration” in the sense of the enviable ability with which Axolotls can replace a lost limb, hand transplants do require significant regeneration of tissues and nerves. Regaining sophisticated hand functions also depends on “reconnecting” the donated hand with the areas of the human brain responsible for the sensory and motor processing required for complex actions. Human hand transplants are not without controversy and raise interesting challenges regarding the human regenerative capacity and the status of transplants for enabling function. More investigation is needed to address medical and ethical questions prior to expansion of hand transplants to a wider patient population.

Applying Health Utility Outcome Measures and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years to Compare Hand Allotransplantation and Myoelectric Prostheses for Upper Extremity Amputations

BACKGROUND

An amputation of the upper extremity not only is devastating for the patient's physical, emotional, and social well-being but also constitutes a financial stress for both the patient and the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine the utility and quality-adjusted life-years of hand allotransplantation versus myoelectric prostheses and to compare these measures in patients afflicted with unilateral versus bilateral amputations.

METHODS

A survey was administered on bilateral amputees, unilateral amputees, replantation patients, and healthy controls. Patient demographics, functional patient-reported outcomes, quality-of-life questionnaires, and utility outcome measures were calculated for four different scenarios: hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses with or without complications.

RESULTS

Five bilateral amputees, 12 unilateral amputees, nine replantation patients, and 45 healthy controls completed the survey. The highest quality-adjusted life-years were obtained in the replantation patient group for the scenario of myoelectric prosthesis without complications (mean, 34.8 years). Altogether, there was no statistically significant difference between hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses (p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis, unilateral amputees reported significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years for myoelectric prostheses rather than hand transplantation (6.4; p = 0.0015), whereas bilateral amputees did not demonstrate a significant difference (-2.4; p = 0.299).

CONCLUSIONS

Utility and quality-adjusted life-years do not differ significantly between hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses, except in unilateral amputees with myoelectric prostheses, who had higher quality-of-life scores. Based on trends from this pilot study, myoelectric prostheses may be considered for unilateral amputees, whereas no superiority can be demonstrated between both treatments in bilateral amputees.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS.

Methods

A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure.

Results

In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103-299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48-79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10-109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated.

Conclusions

The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.

Pediatric Hand Transplantation: A Decision Analysis

Background: The first successful bilateral pediatric hand transplant was performed in 2015. Previous hand transplant decision analysis models have focused on the adult population. This model principally aimed to determine whether adverse outcomes associated with immunosuppression outweigh the benefits of performing bilateral hand transplant surgery in a pediatric candidate. The model also conceptualized the valuation of losing years of life and sought to determine the impact of that valuation on the surgical decision. Methods: A decision model compared undergoing bilateral hand transplant surgery with using prosthetics for an 8-year-old patient. The outcome measure used was quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and sensitivity analysis was performed on the immunosuppressive risks associated with the surgical decision, as well as the perceived valuation of aversion to life years lost. Results: The decision to perform surgery was marginally optimal compared to the prosthetic decision (50.11 QALY vs. 47.95 QALY). A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that this difference may be too marginal to detect an optimal decision (50.14 ± 8.28 QALY vs. 47.95 ± 2.12 QALY). Sensitivity analysis identified decision thresholds related to immunosuppression risks (P = 29% vs. P = 33% modeled), and a trend of increasing risk as a patient is more averse to losing life years. Conclusions: The marginally optimal treatment strategy currently is bilateral hand transplant, compared to prosthetics for pediatric patients. Key determinants of the future optimal strategy will be whether immunosuppressive regimens become safer, with a reduced risk of losing life years due to immunosuppressive complications, and whether prosthetics become more acceptable and enable higher functioning.

Assessing New Technologies in Surgery: Case Example of Acute Primary Repair of the Thumb Ulnar Collateral Ligament

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment provides a means to assess the technical properties, safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and ethical/legal/social impact of a novel technology. An important component of health technology assessment is the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which can be performed using model-based CEA. This study used the CEA model to compare the cost-effectiveness of a novel ligament augmentation device with the standard technique for primary repair of complete ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears.

METHODS

A model was developed for complete UCL tear requiring acute surgical repair, comparing the cost-effectiveness of standard technique primary repair and repair using a ligament augmentation device from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, net monetary benefit (NMB) and incremental NMB. A cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD $50,000/QALY was used to compare the 2 techniques. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the parameter uncertainty, specifically the impact of device cost, time off work, probability of complication, and postoperative outcome.

RESULTS

The NMB for the standard technique was CAD $42,598, and the NMB for repair using the ligament augmentation device was CAD $41,818. The standard technique was the preferred strategy for primary repair of complete UCL tears. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ligament augmentation device became cost-effective if individuals return to work in <18 days (base case 23 days). The device was also favored when the cost was less than CAD $50 and the difference in time to return to work was at least 1 day.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model demonstrates that there may be significant costs associated with the introduction of novel health technologies, and certain conditions, such as an earlier return to work, must be met for some devices to be a cost-effective option. This study provides an example of how model-based CEA is a useful tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel device.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/Decision Analysis II.

Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation in Burn Reconstruction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Vascularized composite allotransplantation has been successfully employed for burn reconstruction since 2003. However, its safety in this population has been questioned due to high levels of alloimmunization from burn care-related tissue exposures. To investigate this, a systematic review of vascularized composite allotransplantation employed for burn reconstruction was conducted, evaluating literature from January 2000 to September 2019. Articles containing vascularized composite allotransplantation, composite tissue allotransplantation, and burn reconstructive surgery were included; articles without published outcomes were excluded. Observational meta-analysis of pooled mortality and acute rejection episodes relative to allograft type (face vs extremity) and reconstruction type (burn vs non-burn) was performed. Twenty-four of the 63 identified articles met the criteria for inclusion, with 5 more articles added after secondary review. To date, 152 allotransplantations have been performed in 117 patients: 45 face transplants and 107 extremity transplants. Of these, 34 (22%) were performed for burn reconstruction in 25 patients (21%) with an overall higher 1-year mortality rate (12.0% vs 1.1%, P  = .030). Of these deaths, 75% received three or more simultaneous allografts. Additionally, more episodes of acute rejection occurred compared to non-burn patients (4.4 vs 2.4, P  = .035). Vascularized composite allotransplantation performed for burn reconstruction was found to be associated with a greater risk of 1-year mortality and nearly twice the number of episodes of acute rejection. Future studies should seek to identify unique risk factors of burn patients undergoing this operation and evaluate the relationship between antigenic burden and surgical outcomes.

Estimation of Health Utility and Quality Adjusted Life Years in Bilateral Hand Transplantation: A Time Trade-off Study

BACKGROUND

Hand transplantation and advances in the field of prostheses have opened new frontiers in the restoration of hand function among bilateral hand amputees (BHA). There is only scarce literature evaluating the health utility (HU) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained by bilateral hand composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) or prosthesis over amputation. The study was focused on BHA restored with prosthesis or CTA.

METHODS

The HU of three different health states (HS) namely, BHA, using prosthesis or with CTA and net QALYs gained by hand transplantation or prosthesis over amputation were computed by time trade-off (TTO) method among 236 study participants.

RESULTS

Among 236 study participants, medical professional (120), general public (89), BHA (23), and bilateral hand transplant recipients (4) were included. The mean HU by TTO method among the study participants (n = 232) as BHA, using prosthesis or CTA was 0.34 (±0.24), 0.50 (±0.26) and 0.69 (±0.26) respectively. Bilateral hand CTA imparted an expected gain of 12.57 (±11.43) mean QALYs over amputation among the study participants. The subgroup analysis displayed higher mean HU in hand CTA recipient HS along with maximum QALY gained by CTA over amputation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral hand CTA HS stands above the other 2 HSs, namely BHA and prosthesis, in terms of the health utility. As demonstrated by QALY gain of 12.57, participants' valuation of health utility is notably higher for CTA with acceptance of lifelong immunosuppressant rather than for a state of uncompromised physical health with a bilateral hand amputation.

All hands on deck: Hand replantation versus transplantation

Objectives:

Our hands play a remarkable role in our activities of daily living and the make-up of our identities. In the United States, an estimated 41,000 individuals live with upper limb loss. Our expanding experience in limb transplantation—including operative techniques, rehabilitation, and expected outcomes—has often been based on our past experience with replantation. Here, we undertake a systematic review of replantation with transplantation in an attempt to better understand the determinants of outcome for each and to provide a summary of the data to this point.

Methods:

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted PubMed searches from 1964 to 2013 for articles in English. In total, 53 primary and secondary source articles were found to involve surgical repair (either replantation or transplantation) for complete amputations at the wrist and forearm levels. All were read and analyzed.

Results:

Hand replantations and transplantations were compared with respect to pre-operative considerations, surgical techniques, post-operative considerations and outcomes, including motor, sensation, cosmesis, patient satisfaction/quality of life, adverse events/side effects, financial costs, and overall function. While comparison of data is limited by heterogeneity, these data support our belief that good outcomes depend on patient expectations and commitment.

Conclusion:

When possible, hand replantation remains the primary option after acute amputation. However, when replantation fails or is not possible, hand transplantation appears to provide at least equal outcomes. Patient commitment, realistic expectations, and physician competence must coincide to achieve the best possible outcomes for both hand replantation and transplantation.

Use of Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation in Upper Extremity Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Decision analysis allows clinicians to apply evidence-based medicine to guide objective decisions in uncertain scenarios. There is no comprehensive review summarizing the various decision analysis tools used. The authors aimed to appraise and review the decision analytic models used in hand surgery.

METHODS

A search of English articles on the PubMed, Ovid, and Embase databases was performed. All articles, regardless of date of publishing, were considered. Two reviewers, based on strict inclusion criteria, independently assessed each article.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5525 abstracts, which yielded 30 studies that met inclusion criteria. Included studies were grouped according to medical indications, with scaphoid fractures (n = 6) and carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 5) being the most commonly reported. Included articles used decision analysis (n = 15) and/or economic analyses (n = 23) to discuss diagnostic strategies or compare treatments. The three most common outcomes reported were utility (n = 12), cost per quality-adjusted life-year (n = 16), and quality-adjusted life-years (n = 16). The decision analysis models compared diagnostic strategies, management options, and novel treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision analysis is increasingly popular in hand surgery. It is useful for comparing surgical strategies through evaluation of quality-of-life outcomes and costing data. The most common model was a simple decision tree. The quality of decision analysis models can be improved with the addition of sensitivity analysis. Surgeons should be familiar with the principles of decision analysis, so that complex decisions can be evaluated using rigorous probabilistic models that combine risks and benefits of multiple strategies.

Bionic reconstruction : Restoration of extremity function with osseointegrated and mind-controlled prostheses

Background

Loss of an extremity at any level has a major impact on a patient’s life. Using bionic reconstruction, extremity function can be restored and the patient reintegrated into daily life. Surgical procedures including selective nerve transfer and anchoring of prostheses into bone are combined with structured rehabilitation and modern prosthetic fitting. The patient is thereby able to use the prostheses intuitively and with multiple degrees of freedom.

Methods

This article presents the concept and approach for modern bionic reconstruction in detail and the relevant literature. The nerve transfer matrices for targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and the concept of osseointegration to optimally fit a patient with a modern prosthesis are described in detail. As a clinical example, the case of a patient who suffered from traumatic amputation and subsequently received TMR in combination with an osseointegrated implant and structured rehabilitation is presented.

Results

Using bionic reconstruction, basic hand functions can be restored and bimanual dexterity can expand the range of daily activities. Besides this approach to bionic reconstruction, its advantages and disadvantages are compared to hand transplantation. The limitations and perspectives of modern bionic reconstruction are also discussed.

Conclusions

Bionic reconstruction is a sophisticated method for restoring extremity function and nowadays can be considered a standard of care for all levels of upper extremity amputations. An interdisciplinary approach and structured rehabilitation are necessary to master prosthetic function to ultimately reintegrate patients into daily life.

Bionic hand as artificial organ: Current status and future perspectives

Even though the hand comprises only 1% of our body weight, about 30% of our central nervous systems (CNS) capacity is related to its control. The loss of a hand thus presents not only the loss of the most important tool allowing us to interact with our environment, but also leaves a dramatic sensory-motor deficit that challenges our CNS. Reconstruction of hand function is therefore not only an essential part of restoring body integrity and functional wholeness but also closes the loop of our neural circuits diminishing phantom sensation and neural pain. If biology fails to restore meaningful function, today we can resort to complex mechatronic replacement that have functional capabilities that in some respects even outperform biological alternatives, such as hand transplantation. As with replantation and transplantations, the challenge of bionic replacement is connecting the target with the CNS to achieve natural and intuitive control. In recent years, we have developed a number of strategies to improve neural interfacing, signal extraction, interpretation and stable mechanical attachment that are important parts of our current research. This work gives an overview of recent advances in bionic reconstruction, surgical refinements over technological interfacing, skeletal fixation, and modern rehabilitation tools that allow quick integration of prosthetic replacement.

Cost-utility studies in upper limb orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of published literature

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the quality and scope of the current cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) literature in the field of hand and upper limb orthopaedic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and the CEA Registry to identify CEAs that were conducted on or after 1 January 1997, that studied a procedure pertaining to the field of hand and upper extremity surgery, that were clinical studies, and that reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. We identified a total of 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The quality of these studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Analysis (QHES) scale.

RESULTS

The mean total QHES score was 82 (high-quality). Over time, a greater proportion of these studies have demonstrated poorer QHES quality (scores < 75). Lower-scoring studies demonstrated several deficits, including failures in identifying reference perspectives, incorporating comparators and sensitivity analyses, discounting costs and utilities, and disclosing funding.

CONCLUSION

It will be important to monitor the ongoing quality of CEA studies in orthopaedics and ensure standards of reporting and comparability in accordance with Second Panel recommendations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1416-23.

Using Decision Analysis to Understand the Indications for Unilateral Hand Transplantation

Background: Upper extremity transplantation has been performed to improve quality of life, the benefit which must be traded off for the risk created by life-long immunosuppression. We believe the process of decision analysis is well suited to improve our understanding of these trade-offs. Method: We created a decision tree to include a branch point to illustrate the expected recovery of useful function in the transplant, using the best estimates for utility and probability that exist. Results: Our model revealed that when the probability of achieving a good result, graded as Chen level one or two is greater than 73%, transplantation is preferred over no transplantation. The decision is sensitive to the probability of major complications and the utility of a transplanted limb with minimal function. Conclusions: The results of this analysis show that under some circumstances given a high probability of satisfactory functional recovery, unilateral hand transplantation can be justified.

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

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.

Composite Tissue Transplant of Hand or Arm: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Injuries to arms and legs following severe trauma can result in the loss of large regions of tissue, disrupting healing and function and sometimes leading to amputation of the damaged limb. People experiencing amputations of the hand or arm could potentially benefit from composite tissue transplant, which is being performed in some countries. Currently, there are no composite tissue transplant programs in Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature, with no restriction on study design, examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand and arm transplant. We assessed the overall quality of the clinical evidence with GRADE. We developed a Markov decision analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of transplant versus standard care for a healthy adult with a hand amputation. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using a 30-year time horizon. We also estimated the impact on provincial health care costs if these transplants were publicly funded in Ontario.

RESULTS

Compared to pre-transplant function, patients' post-transplant function was significantly better. For various reasons, 17% of transplanted limbs were amputated, 6.4% of patients died within the first year after the transplant, and 10.6% of patients experienced chronic rejections. GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, single-hand transplant was dominated by standard care, with increased costs ($735,647 CAD vs. $61,429) and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (10.96 vs. 11.82). Double-hand transplant also had higher costs compared with standard care ($633,780), but it had an increased effectiveness of 0.17 QALYs, translating to an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY gained. In most sensitivity analyses, ICERs for bilateral hand transplant were greater than $1 million per QALY gained. A hand transplant program would lead to an estimated annual budget impact of $0.9 million to $1.2 million in the next 3 years, 2016 to 2018, to treat 3 adults per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite tissue transplant of the hand or arm may improve a patient's ability to function, but because the overall quality of evidence is of very low quality, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether benefits outweigh harms. Compared with standard care, both single- and double-hand transplants are not cost-effective.

A Methodology for Determining Standard of Care Status for a New Surgical Procedure: Hand Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hand allotransplantation was initially criticized as unethical and unlikely to succeed. The results proved to be better than anticipated, now raising the issue of whether hand transplantation is the standard of care. The purpose of this article is to outline a reasonable methodology for determining whether a surgical procedure is the standard of care, and then to apply that methodology to hand transplantation.

METHODS

Publications on ethics and definitions of medical (not legal) standard of care were reviewed. All hand transplantations completed in the United States were evaluated regarding their status as experimental, standard of care, or both. Then, the stakeholders, physicians, public insurers, and regulators were examined to determine whether they accepted hand transplantation as the standard of care. Utility and incremental cost-utility ratio were determined. Hand transplantation was considered the standard of care when stakeholders were using, insuring, and regulating the procedure.

RESULTS

The public expresses a desire for hand transplantation. A minority of surgeons consider the procedure the standard of care. Ethical committees, institutional review boards, and scholarly articles deem the procedure ethical. A series of institutions have carried out the procedure with a record of successes. Some institutions perform the surgical procedure as the standard of care. Scholarly work demonstrates beneficial outcomes. Some commercial and federal government insurers are willing to cover the cost of the procedure. Utility determination justifies the procedure. There are no incremental cost-utility ratio analysis studies that justify the procedure.

CONCLUSION

Hand transplantation is moving from acceptance as an ethical surgical experiment to the standard of care.

Hand Transplantation Versus Hand Prosthetics: Pros and Cons

Composite tissue transplantation and new developments in the field of prosthetics have opened new frontiers in the restoration of function among upper limb amputees. It is now possible to restore hand function in affected patients; however, the indications, advantages, and limitations for either hand transplantation or prosthetic fitting must be carefully considered depending on the level and extent of the limb loss. Hand transplantation allows comprehensive hand function to be restored, yet composite tissue transplantation comes with disadvantages, making this method a controversial topic in the hand surgical community. Alternatively, prosthetic limb replacement represents the standard of care for upper limb amputees, but results in the known limitations of function, sensation, and usage. The indication for hand transplantation or prosthetic fitting strongly depends on the level of amputation, as well as on the extent (unilateral/bilateral) of the amputation. In this review, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of hand transplantation and prosthetic replacement for upper limb amputees in general, as well as in regard to the different levels of amputation.

The health technology assessment of the compulsory accident insurance scheme of hand transplantation in Switzerland

Recently the decision-making committee of the compulsory Swiss accident insurance scheme needed to make a basic decision as to whether to fund hand transplantation under that scheme or not. A Health Technology Assessment was commissioned to inform decision-making and gain experience with applicability of the method. The following were main findings from various domains. Compared with prosthesis fitting, the outcome of hand transplantation is satisfactory for function and sensibility. Complications due to immunosuppression are frequent, sometimes severe and potentially life-shortening. The direct medical costs over the entire life span calculated for a 35-year-old unilaterally amputated base case patient were CHF 528,600 (EUR 438,500) higher than for a prosthesis. There are challenging ethical, legal and organizational issues. The committee decided not to reimburse hand transplantation for ethical reasons. The Health Technology Assessment has been shown to be a useful tool for decision-making in the context of Swiss accident insurance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

A systematic review of utilities in hand surgery literature

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature to determine if utilities (a quantitative way to express patient preferences for health outcomes) have been measured in hand surgery studies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Cochrane, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and CINAHL electronic databases (1966-2013). This search was supplemented by cited and manual reference searches and expert consultation to retrieve all relevant studies. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers if they pertained to hand or wrist surgery, were published in English, and measured utilities as an outcome. Descriptive data were extracted, including the hand surgery procedure investigated, study design, value of utilities, and methodology of utilities measurement.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included after reviewing 989 studies. Most hand conditions were associated with utilities less than 0.8. Utilities in the reviewed studies were measured using different methods and from different subjects. Three studies paradoxically mapped greater utilities for poorer heath states.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand conditions cause impairment, as evidenced by their utilities. Measurement of utilities remains uncommon in hand surgery literature. Future studies should not only measure utilities but also do so with consistent and appropriate methodology to ensure that mapped values are valid and comparable.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic/decision analysis III.

Hand and upper extremity transplantation: an update of outcomes in the worldwide experience

BACKGROUND

Hand/upper extremity transplantation is the most common form of vascularized composite allotransplantation performed to date. An Update of worldwide outcomes is reported.

METHODS

The authors summarize the international experience with 107 known transplanted hand/upper extremities in 72 patients. Data from published medical literature, national and international meetings, lay press reports, and personal communications were utilized to provide the most up-to-date summary.

RESULTS

Although 24 losses (including four mortalities) are known, three of the four reported mortalities and eight of 24 limb losses were caused by multiple type vascularized composite allotransplantations (combined upper and lower limb or upper limb and face). Seven more losses were attributable to 15 patients in the early experience in China. In the United States and Western Europe, only three other non-acute graft losses have been reported, resulting in a patient survival rate for unilateral or bilateral hand transplantation in isolation of 98.5 percent and an overall graft survival rate of 83.1 percent.

CONCLUSIONS

Published functional outcomes continue to demonstrate improvement in function and quality of life. The international experience supports the idea that, for properly selected individuals, hand and upper extremity transplantation should be considered an important treatment option.

Facial transplantation: historical developments and future directions

Objective:

To present the clinical outcomes obtained by the first facial transplant teams worldwide, reviewing current practice and addressing controversies.

Methods:

A bibliographic search of Medline and Embase databases was performed, and a comparative analysis of all articles published from 1980 to the present was conducted. Two independent investigators screened the manuscripts in accordance with pre-defined criteria.

Results:

A total of 12 partial and 5 full facial transplants were recorded in the literature. Procedures included partial and near-total facial myocutaneous flaps, and complex osteomyocutaneous grafts. Fifteen patients had fully vascularised grafts, and two patients died of transplant-related and infectious complications.

Conclusion:

Facial transplantation can restore quality of life and enable the social re-integration of recipients. Results published by the first facial transplant teams are promising. However, long-term reports of aesthetic and functional outcomes are needed to more precisely define outcomes. In addition, significant technical, medical and ethical issues remain to be solved.

Regenerative Engineering and Bionic Limbs

Amputations of the upper extremity are severely debilitating, current treatments support very basic limb movement, and patients undergo extensive physiotherapy and psychological counselling. There is no prosthesis that allows the amputees near-normal function. With increasing number of amputees due to injuries sustained in accidents, natural calamities and international conflicts, there is a growing requirement for novel strategies and new discoveries. Advances have been made in technological, material and in prosthesis integration where researchers are now exploring artificial prosthesis that integrate with the residual tissues and function based on signal impulses received from the residual nerves. Efforts are focused on challenging experts in different disciplines to integrate ideas and technologies to allow for the regeneration of injured tissues, recording on tissue signals and feed-back to facilitate responsive movements and gradations of muscle force. A fully functional replacement and regenerative or integrated prosthesis will rely on interface of biological process with robotic systems to allow individual control of movement such as at the elbow, forearm, digits and thumb in the upper extremity. Regenerative engineering focused on the regeneration of complex tissue and organ systems will be realized by the cross-fertilization of advances over the past thirty years in the fields of tissue engineering, nanotechnology, stem cell science, and developmental biology. The convergence of toolboxes crated within each discipline will allow interdisciplinary teams from engineering, science, and medicine to realize new strategies, mergers of disparate technologies, such as biophysics, smart bionics, and the healing power of the mind. Tackling the clinical challenges, interfacing the biological process with bionic technologies, engineering biological control of the electronic systems, and feed-back will be the important goals in regenerative engineering over the next two decades.

The utility of hand transplantation in hand amputee patients

PURPOSE

To measure the desirable health outcome, termed utility, and the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with hand composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) using hand amputee patients and the general public.

METHODS

Using the standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques, utilities were obtained from 30 general public participants and 12 amputee patients. The health utility and net QALYs gained or lost with transplantation were computed. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for the effects of lifelong immunosuppression on the life expectancy of transplant recipients. Higher scores represent greater utility.

RESULTS

Hand amputation mean health utility as measured by the SG and TTO methods, respectively, was 0.72 and 0.80 for the general public and 0.69 and 0.70 for hand amputees. In comparison, hand CTA mean health utility was 0.74 and 0.82 for the general public and 0.83 and 0.86 for amputees. Hand CTA imparted an expected gain of 0.9 QALYs (SG and TTO) in the general public and 7.0 (TTO) and 7.8 (SG) QALYs in hand amputees. A loss of at least 1.7 QALYs was demonstrated when decreasing the life expectancy in the sensitivity analysis in the hand amputee group.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand amputee patients did not show a preference toward hand CTA with its inherent risks. With this procedure being increasingly adopted worldwide, the benefits must be carefully weighed against the risks of lifelong immunosuppressive therapy. This study does not show clear benefit to advocate hand CTA.

Hand transplant surgery

In September 1998 the world's first hand transplant was performed in Lyon, France. A new era in reconstructive surgery had begun. This case highlighted the potential for composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA). While CTA is not a new technique, it unifies the principles of reconstructive microsurgery and transplant surgery, achieving the goals of absolute correction of a defect with anatomically and physiologically identical tissue with none of the issues of donor site morbidity associated with autologous tissue transfer. The adoption of this technique for non-life threatening conditions to improve quality of life has generated a number of new ethical considerations. Additionally, the prominence of transplanted hands has led to much discussion around the issue of body identity and psychological assessment of potential recipients. This is fundamental to any hand transplantation programme. With the advent of hand transplantation dawning in the UK, we review the many ethical considerations that contribute to this new frontier.

The utility of outcome studies in plastic surgery

Summary:

Outcome studies help provide the evidence-based science rationalizing treatment end results that factor the experience of patients and the impact on society. They improve the recognition of the shortcoming in clinical practice and provide the foundation for the development of gold standard care. With such evidence, health care practitioners can develop evidence-based justification for treatments and offer patients with superior informed consent for their treatment options. Furthermore, health care and insurance agencies can recognize improved cost-benefit options in the purpose of disease prevention and alleviation of its impact on the patient and society. Health care outcomes are ultimately measured by the treatment of disease, the reduction of symptoms, the normalization of laboratory results and physical measures, saving a life, and patient satisfaction. In this review, we outline the tools available to measure outcomes in plastic surgery and subsequently allow the objective measurements of plastic surgical conditions. Six major outcome categories are discussed: (1) functional measures; (2) preference-based measures and utility outcome scores; (3) patient satisfaction; (4) health outcomes and time; (5) other tools: patient-reported outcome measurement information system, BREAST-Q, and Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons; and (6) cost-effectiveness analysis. We use breast hypertrophy requiring breast reduction as an example throughout this review as a representative plastic surgical condition with multiple treatments available.

A methodological analysis of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature using established guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility studies, common in medicine, are rare within plastic surgery despite their capability of measuring the value of procedures by considering the societal costs of improving quality of life. The objectives of this study were to analyze the design quality of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature and to identify areas of needed improvement for future studies.

METHODS

A scoring tool was constructed based on the Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. A PubMed search through October of 2012 was conducted for English-language plastic surgery utility studies. Articles were selected using two inclusion criteria and evaluated using the scoring tool.

RESULTS

A 9-point scoring tool was created, and 37 publications were selected. Their average score was 3 out of 9 points. Thirty studies (81 percent) used population preferences in utility measurements. Fifteen studies (41 percent) measured costs, but only four (11 percent) included indirect costs and only five (14 percent) applied discount rates to calculate the value of treatments over time. Three studies (8 percent) earned zero points. The highest scoring study earned 8 points.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies manifest the potential of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery. Nonetheless, they are inconsistent in applying established cost-utility guidelines, especially in measuring costs and conducting recommended sensitivity analysis. Following this simple scoring tool can help future studies achieve some necessary improvements.