Face transplantation has emerged as reconstructive option for the most challenging facial deformities. A comprehensive analysis of functional outcomes, medical complications, incidence of malignancy, and chronic rejection in face transplantation recipients over an extended follow-up period has not yet been published leaving a notable gap in the literature. We retrospectively collected data of morbidity, rejection, vasculopathy, metabolic side effects, as well as functional outcome of sensory return, facial motor function, and speech from 9 patients who underwent face transplantation at Brigham and Women's Hospital between 2009 and 2020. The median follow-up was 120 months (54 and 154 months). Four grafts (40%) developed signs of clinical and histopathologic chronic rejection without evidence of vasculopathy on computed tomography angiograms. Sensory return assessed with Weinstein enhanced sensory testing-monofilament showed an increase in 6 patients (66.7%), and facial expression analysis showed improvement throughout the whole cohort at their most recent follow-up. Speech intelligibility was stable or increasing for 5 patients (55.6%). In conclusion, the long-term outcomes reveal promising results in terms of overall graft retention and functional recovery. Metabolic, malignant, and infectious complications, as well as graft rejection episodes, are expected to occur in this population, and some may be related to patient's age and lifestyle.

Peripheral nerve injuries requiring surgical repair affect over 100,000 individuals in the US annually. Three accepted methods of peripheral repair include end-to-end, end-to-side, and side-to-side neurorrhaphy, each with its own set of indications. While it remains important to understand the specific circumstances in which each method is employed, a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the repair can add to the surgeon’s decision-making algorithm when considering each technique, as well as help decide nuances in technique such as the need for making epineurial versus perineurial windows, length and dept of the nerve window, and distance from target muscle. In addition, a thorough knowledge of individual factors that are active in a particular repair can help guide research into adjunct therapies. This paper serves to summarize the similarities and divergences of the three commonly used nerve repair strategies and the scope of molecular mechanisms and signal transduction pathways in nerve regeneration as well as to identify the gaps in knowledge that should be addressed if we are to improve clinical outcomes in our patients.

Burn injuries pose a significant source of patient morbidity/mortality and reconstructive challenges for burn surgeons, especially in vulnerable populations such as geriatric patients. Our study aims to provide new insights into burn epidemiology by analyzing the largest national, multicenter sample of geriatric patients to date. Using the National Electronic Injury and Surveillance System (NEISS) database (2004-2022), individuals with a “burn” diagnosis were extracted and divided into 2 comparison age groups of 18-64 and 65+. Variables including sex, race, affected body part, incident location, burn etiology, and clinical outcomes were assessed between the 2 groups using 2 proportion z-tests. About 60,581 adult patients who sustained burns were identified from the NEISS database with 6630 of those patients categorized as geriatric (65+). Geriatric patients had a significantly greater frequency of scald burns (36.9% vs 35.4%; P < .01), and third-degree/full-thickness burns (10.4% vs 5.5%, P < .01) relative to nongeriatric adult patients with most of these burns occurring at home (75.9% vs 67.4%; P < .01). The top 5 burn sites for geriatric patients were the hand, face, foot, lower arm, and lower leg and the top 5 burn injury sources were hot water, cookware, oven/ranges, home fires, and gasoline. Geriatric patients had over 2 times greater risk of hospital admission (odds ratio [OR]: 2.32, 95% CI: 2.17-2.49, P < .01) and over 5 times greater risk of emergency department mortality (OR: 6.22, 95% CI: 4.00-9.66, P < .01) after incurring burn injuries. These results highlight the need for stronger awareness of preventative measures for geriatric burn injuries.