Hand Transplantation: Current concepts and management algorithm

Trasplante de mano: conceptos actuales y algoritmo de manejo

Introduction: Hand transplantation was first reported in 1964, and is currently one of the challenges that the 21st century poses to Medicine. Several related studies and advances have been achieved, thus allowing to explore new alternatives for patient management. Many reference centers have performed their own analyzes based on their experience, which has led to increase the viability of this type of transplant.

Objective: This review seeks to provide an overview of hand transplantation and to propose a management algorithm.

Materials and methods: Several criteria must be met to select candidates, including clinical, paraclinical and psychosocial assessment performed by a multidisciplinary team. Immunosuppression seeks to avoid rejection, while immunosuppressants must have appropriate serum levels to reduce adverse effects. Classical and atypical acute rejection cases have been reported, where the skin is the main target tissue. Chronic rejection cases are related to the blood vessels that become affected. Monitoring is performed using several tests, considering skin biopsy as the gold standard.

Results: Drug therapy complications derive from drug toxicity, which are manifested as metabolic disorders, development of opportunistic infections and neoplasms. Rehabilitation and social aspects, such as patient satisfaction, should be evaluated during recovery to ensure adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. In 2011, the international registry of hand and composite tissue transplantation reported 39 cases of upper limb transplantation with multiple results. All this proves that to achieve optimal and viable results, a multidisciplinary team must conduct proper follow-up, and that the patient should have a support and motivation network, and comply with pharmacological management.

Conclusion: Further research is expected to create strategies to develop tolerance and, thus, reduce management by immunosuppression.

Introducción. El trasplante de mano ha sido uno de los retos del siglo XXI, cuyo primer caso reportado ocurrió en 1964. En este campo se han hecho estudios y avances que permitieron explorar nuevas alternativas para el manejo del paciente con trasplante de mano, por lo que diversos centros de referencia han realizado análisis basados en sus experiencias, las cuales permitieron lograr la viabilidad de este tipo de trasplante.

Objetivo. Esta revisión busca dar una visión general sobre el trasplante de mano y proponer un algoritmo de manejo.

Materiales y métodos. La selección de candidatos requiere una serie de criterios, tales como evaluación clínica, paraclínica y psicosocial, desarrollados por un equipo multidisciplinario. La inmunosupresión busca evitar el rechazo y los inmunosupresores deben tener los niveles séricos apropiados para reducir sus efectos adversos. Se han reportado casos de rechazo agudo clásico y atípico, donde la piel es el principal tejido blanco, y rechazo crónico, en el cual se afectan los vasos sanguíneos. El seguimiento se realiza con varias pruebas, de modo que la de oro es la biopsia de piel.

Resultados. Las complicaciones del tratamiento farmacológico derivan de la toxicidad de los medicamentos y se manifiestan como alteraciones metabólicas, infecciones oportunistas y neoplasias. La rehabilitación y los aspectos sociales, como el grado de satisfacción del paciente, deben ser evaluados durante la recuperación para asegurar adherencia al tratamiento. En 2011 el registro internacional de alotransplante compuesto de mano reportó 39 casos de trasplante de extremidades superiores con resultados variables; todo esto evidencia que para lograr un resultado óptimo y viable del trasplante debe realizarse seguimiento por un equipo multidisciplinario, red de apoyo del paciente y motivación del mismo, junto con el cumplimiento del manejo farmacológico.

Conclusión. Se espera que nuevas investigaciones puedan crear estrategias para desarrollar tolerancia y, de esta forma, reducir el manejo mediante inmunosupresión.

review paper

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v65n3.56151

Received: 10/03/2016. Accepted: 11/09/2016.

Carlos Iván Carrillo-Moreno1 • Diana Paola Escobar-Serna1 • Samuel de Jesús González-Vélez1 • Eyner Lozano-Marquez1

1 Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Faculty of Medicine - Department of Surgery - Human Organ and Tissue Transplantation Group - Bogotá D. C. - Colombia.

Corresponding author: Carlos Iván Carrillo Moreno. Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Carrera 30 No 45-03, building 471, office 124. Phone number: +57 1 3165000, ext.: 15105. Bogotá D.C. Colombia. Email: cicarrillom@unal.edu.co.

| Abstract |

Keywords: Hand Transplantation; Immunosuppression; Composite Tissue Allografts; Graft Rejection; Infection.

Carrillo-Moreno CI, Escobar-Serna DP, González-Vélez SJ, Lozano-Márquez E. Hand Transplantation: Current concepts and management algorithm. Rev. Fac. Med. 2017;65(3):491-500. English. doi: https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v65n3.56151.

| Resumen |

Palabras clave: Trasplante de mano; Inmunosupresión; Alotrasplante compuesto vascularizado; Rechazo de injerto; Infección (DeCS).

Carrillo-Moreno CI, Escobar-Serna DP, González-Vélez SJ, Lozano-Márquez E. [Trasplante de mano: conceptos actuales y algoritmo de manejo]. Rev. Fac. Med. 2017;65(3):491-500. English. doi: https://doi.org/10.15446/revfacmed.v65n3.56151.

Introduction

Hand transplantation is categorized as vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) (1), and is different from solid organ transplantation (SOT), whose histological composition homogeneity is greater, and functionality occurs since the moment the transplantation takes place. In the case of VCA, transplantation consists of tissues such as skin, bone, muscle, tendons, nerves and blood vessels (2) that generate greater antigenic heterogeneity.

Although the survival of the recipient does not depend on VCA, as in most SOT cases, both improve the quality of life of patients (3). Despite these differences, VCA was equated to SOT in France as per Act 800 of August 6, 2004 (4). Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published its decision to recognize VCA as organs (5). This decision was based on the following criteria: a) vca is vascularized and requires surgical anastomosis after transplantation; b) it is composed of multiple tissues; c) it must be recovered from a donor as an anatomical unit; d) it is transplanted into a recipient as an anatomical unit; e) it requires minimal manipulation; f) its use is homologous; g) it is not combined with devices or other elements; h) it is susceptible to ischemia, and i) it is susceptible to rejection (5). Additionally, the changes proposed to the National Organ Transplant Act in the United States would facilitate the hand donation and transplantation process (6).

Several reports on limb and face transplantation showed that VAC is more akin to SOT than to tissue transplantation (7-9). By the same token, the organ and tissue transplantation line of Universidad Nacional de Colombia considers that VAC should be treated as a solid organ. This procedure requires health personnel trained in transplantation to standardize management, and to open new scenarios for the application of organ transplantation (10).

History of hand transplantation

In 1964, Gilbert (11), ten years after the first successful kidney transplantation (12), performed the first hand transplantation in Ecuador. The procedure consisted of a unilateral graft transplant, and immunosuppressive management with azathioprine and prednisone to achieve graft survival for three weeks only (13). Due to these unsuccessful results, research on this field was halted for about three decades. Then, in 1998, a second attempt was made in Lyon (14); this time, the graft was removed 29 months after transplantation due to rejection caused by lack of adherence to treatment. In any case, these results allowed a new period for hand transplantation in the 21st century.

Today, several groups work on hand transplantation with good results. The most relevant are found in Poland (15), France (16), Innsbruck (17) and Louisville (18).

Materials and methods

Patient selection and contraindications

The Baltimore group proposes the following inclusion criteria for the selection of candidates: age between 18 and 69 years, no coexisting medical conditions that may affect the outcome of the transplant (immunomodulatory, surgical or functional conditions), no psychiatric pathologies, no history of neoplasms in the last 10 years or HIV infection, and amputation for at least six months prior to the transplantation, with a good faith attempt to use prostheses and rehabilitation.

Moreover, for solid organ transplantation (SOT), additional criteria must be met (19,20). Inherited peripheral and inflammatory neuropathies, as well as neuropathies associated with systemic (diabetes, amyloidosis) and toxic diseases (metals and drugs) should be considered as relative contraindications for VAC, since transplantation requires post-transplant nerve regeneration, which could negatively affect the recovery of sensitivity or motor function in the hand (3,21).

In general, exclusion criteria to be considered include patients under 18 or over 69 years of age, and conditions that affect: a) the immunomodulatory protocol, such as chronic infections (HIV, hepatitis C), and preexisting immunological malignancies or deficiencies; b) surgical success and healing of coagulopathies, hematological diseases, vascular collagen disorders or connective tissue disorders; and c) functional results (healing of nerves or bones) in the presence of lipopolysaccharidosis, amyloidosis, metabolic diseases or bone genetic diseases. Other exclusion criteria are autoimmune inflammatory arthritis and extensive and severe osteoarthritis. In addition, patients may be excluded due to any other problem developed during the selection process (19,20). Similarly, the loss of the hand should be unilateral or bilateral and the level of amputation limited to the forearm.

Thereafter, a panel of screening tests is performed, including hematologic tests such as complete and differential blood count, reticulocyte count, platelet count, PT (prothrombin time), PTT (partial thromboplastin time), INR (international normalized ratio), ABO (for blood type compatibility; blood type A, B or O), Rh factor, major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and panel reactive antibodies (PRA).

Metabolic tests include serum electrolytes, renal function panel, creatinine, uroanalysis and liver function. Infectious tests involve cytomegalovirus detection, Epstein-Barr, herpes simplex, toxoplasmosis, varicella-zoster (IgG and IgM when indicated), HIV 1 and 2, hepatitis C, syphilis, hepatitis B and Mantoux skin test (TST). Cardiopulmonary tests involve electrocardiogram and echocardiogram or pulmonary function test with DL02.

Finally, radiology tests include abdomen ultrasound (to discard a tumor), hand and stump ultrasound, computerized axial tomography (CT), conventional angiography, functional magnetic resonance, paranasal sinus x-ray (to discard an infection or tumor), thoracic and simple bilateral hand x-ray, and wrist and forearm x-ray as indicated (19,20).

Diagnostic images (radiography, CT, NMR, among others) are important because they characterize the structural integrity of soft tissues and the bone of the receptor, which indicate how healthy a tissue is, and prevents anastomosis in a diseased or injured tissue. In addition, they describe structural damage (maceration of distal residual tissues, bone fragmentation, intra-articular fracture extension), either caused by amputation or by subsequent surgical procedures. This guides the surgical process, in the best possible way, where muscle mass and bone integrity need to be preserved. They also exclude any underlying disease that may compromise the function of the transplant or contraindicate life-long immunosuppression.

Angiography or angioresonance is used to identify the appropriate anastomotic vascular pedicle (radial or ulnar) for grafting. It is worth noting that ultrasound is useful for identifying signs of endothelial proliferation during postoperative surveillance, which would indicate graft rejection (22).

However, the assessment of coincident MHC is recommended, since the number of acute rejections seems to correlate with the number of mismatched MHC, whose compatibility, according to one hypothesis, correlates with the development of antibodies in the donor. Therefore, this also influences the risk of developing graft vasculopathy in VAC (23,24).

Lastly, a multidisciplinary team should perform a complete clinical assessment of the candidates, including specialists (gastroenterologist, ophthalmologist, dentist, etc.) and psychological and social work support (19,20).

Immunology of the hand

Unlike solid organs (kidney, heart, liver, etc.), the hand is coated with skin, which has a very high antigenic load (25). In 2005, Tung et al. demonstrated that skin rejection is the first event in studies of limbs transplantation in mice (26), which coincides with findings in humans. The cellular components of the skin, associated with immune response, are keratinocytes, langerhans cells and dendritic cells. Keratinocytes produce proinflammatory cytokines that activate these cells in the dermis and epidermis, and chemokines that attract circulating lymphocytes into inflammatory foci and regulate the function of langerhans cells in the immune response (27).

On the other hand, Sugita et al., when performing epidermal cell cultures, found that the expression of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II in keratinocytes was promoted in this type of cells, while CD86 was expressed in langerhans cells. This finding allows identifying the role of keratinocytes in the appearance of antigens, through toll-like receptors, as well as their role in the regulation of the immune response (28). These results confirm that skin has the ability to trigger a large-scale immune response that can lead to skin rejection in hand allografts.

Immunosuppressive protocols

Induction therapy with both monoclonal (alemtuzumab/basiliximab) and polyclonal antibodies (ATG, that is, antithymocyte globulin) has been used since the Lyon transplant in 1998 based on the patient’s immunological risk, and is followed by maintenance management, combined with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), tacrolimus and steroids (25). In many studies, skin cell components have been characterized while searching alternatives to induce tolerance such as chimerism by transplantation of hematopoietic cells, together with cytokines of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in animal models, or reduction of pharmacological immunosuppression. This has yielded varying results, either transitory chimerism or risk of generating graft-versus-host disease (29-31).

Similarly, the experience of the Polish group, with six patients transplanted until 2011, reported the following scheme as a management protocol:

a) Induction: basiliximab, tacrolimus 5mg oral, MMF 2g oral, and methylprednisolone 1g intravenously.

b) Day 1: tacrolimus 5mg oral twice a day, MMF 1g oral twice a day, and methylprednisolone 500 mg intravenously.

c) Day 2: basiliximab intravenously, tacrolimus 5mg oral twice a day, and MMF 1g oral twice a day.

d) Days 3-7: tacrolimus (seru level 20 ng/mL), MMF 2g oral (daily), and methylprednisolone 500mg intravenously.

e) Maintenance: tacrolimus (peak level 10-15 ng/ml), 56 months after transplantation. Management was done with tacrolimus (peak level 10 ng/mL), steroids (5 mg / d), and MMF (2g/d) (15).

Until the report disclosed in 2011, the French group had performed five hand transplantations with ATG or alemtuzumab for the management of induction therapy, and tacrolimus, prednisone and MMF for maintenance (16). Despite the low number of patients, both protocols have shown favorable outcomes. Therefore, it is suggested that each center, according to its experience and the individual characteristics of each patient, creates its own protocols for immunosuppression (15-18,32-40).

Surgical procedure

As for the surgical procedure to implant the hand, bones, tendons, nerves and blood vessels of both the stump and the hand graft are identified. The order of the union is: fixation of the bones by means of plates and screws usually used in cases of arm fracture, anastomosis of arteries and veins, muscle and tendon repair, nerve repair, and skin closure. Cold ischemia time varies between 50 minutes and 12 hours (mean: 6 hours, 12 minutes) and depends, to a great extent, on the geographic distance between donor and recipient hospitals. (32,41,42).

Complications

Acute rejection

Globally, 85% of all hand transplant recipients have experienced at least one episode of rejection unrelated to induction or maintenance therapy (25) within the first year of transplantation. This is why it is considered as one of the main complications.

Rejection is identified by visual inspection and confirmed by skin biopsy, as it is a highly immunogenic tissue (43-46). Classical acute rejection is observed as an erythematous (diffuse or focal) maculopapular eruption, accompanied or not by edema and vesicles. Other clinical signs are desquamation, ulceration or necrosis (47,48). In addition, manifestations of atypical acute rejection affect the palmar skin and nails, so the lesion appears as a desquamative rash associated with dry skin, red papules and palmar thickening or lichenification, nail dystrophy, deformation or nail loss (47).

Treatment for acute rejection includes topical tacrolimus or clobetasol ointments, as well as systemic steroids and monoclonal antibodies as needed (49,50). The histopathological characterization of skin rejection is performed using the Banff classification (51,52). In the skin samples, an increase in the expression of adhesion molecules (Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 o ICAM-1, E-Selectin and P-Selectin) is evidenced in the vascular endothelium of the graft, which is associated with the severity of the rejection (25, 53). In addition, lymphocyte infiltrate is observed with predominance of T CD4+, CD8+, CD3+, and CD68+ lymphocytes, and Foxp3 transcription factor expression, which is also correlated with the severity of rejection (53-57).

Chronic rejection

Little is known about the risk of chronic rejection in humans, whereas hindlimb animal models with rats have shown thickening of the intima and light occlusion of the graft arteries at a histological level (47,58). In this model, repetitive episodes of acute rejection were induced and histological changes of chronic rejection were achieved, including loss of hair follicles and epithelium, and adnexial muscle atrophy, with macrophage infiltration and fibrosis.

Vascular alterations are late findings of rejection, suggesting that multiple episodes of acute rejection may lead to vasculopathy in the graft (47,59,60). Therefore, TH1 and TH2 have been proposed as immune activation pathways mediated by Helper TCD4+ T cells. The former is associated with acute rejection and is mediated by IFN-, TNF-α and IL-2 proinflammatory cytokines that increase immunogenicity in allografts. On the other hand, the TH2 pathway induces tolerance by means of IL-4,5,6 and IL-10 , which inhibit the production of IFN , and Th1 cells to suppress the production of IL-6 and TNF-α from monocytes. Nowadays, it is suggested that the TH2 pathway favors the production of alloantibodies, cytokines, and growth factors that induce the proliferation of TCD8+, cells, natural killer (NK) cells, B cells, macrophages, smooth muscle and endothelial cells that favor chronic rejection (61-63).

Pharmacological immunosuppression

Complications secondary to the immunosuppressive protocol, which prevent hand allograft rejection, may appear including infection, post-transplant diabetes, hypertension, nephrotoxicity, hyperlipidemia, leukopenia, cardiovascular disease, bilateral hip osteonecrosis, and increased risk of developing certain cancers (3).

Opportunistic infections

One of the most common is cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, perhaps due to the high risk of latent virus transmission forms in leukocytes, epithelial cells and hematopoietic bone marrow stem cells found in the hand allograft (64). This may increase morbimortality in the recipient, as well as decreased graft survival and increased risk of acute rejection episodes (14,65-68). Negative CMV receptors may get infected through blood transfusions, community transmission and false CMV negatives in the donor. In addition, treatment with drugs such as Ganciclovir (GCV), Valganciclovir (ValGCV), Foscarnet and Cidofovir, alone or in combination, should be initiated, while monitoring is performed with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for CMV (55).

Bonatti et al. (56), of the Innsbruck group, reported that their three hand receptors received antiviral prophylaxis with Ganciclovir (GCV) or Valganciclovir (valGCV) and still developed an infection by CMV. Two of them developed a complicated infection that required anti-CMV, hyperimmunoglobulin, cidofovir and foscarnet. In contrast, the third patient suffered from one type of non-invasive viremia by CMV. Furthermore, Ravindra et al. (69), of the Louisville group, reported that two of their three patients developed CMV infection; one of them went into remission with oral GCV, and the other was administered the same medication but intravenously, with complete remission.

Other infections reported in these patients were caused by human papilloma virus, herpes simplex, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium difficile, contagious molluscum, Pseudomonas sp., candida mycosis and Alternaria alternata (32,70,71). In general, it is necessary to contemplate the same considerations of solid organ transplantation, although there is no evidence regarding prophylaxis.

Neoplasms

Since hand transplantation patients have been monitored for less than 10 years, many of the side effects of long-term immunosuppression are still unknown, considering that, in general, they are healthy patients.

So, people undergoing solid organ transplantation are known to be at least three to five times more likely to develop neoplasms compared to the general population. The most frequent types of cancer are associated with virus and skin cancer (72,73), which is why it is essential to consider the risk of developing different types of neoplasms in patients with vascularized composite allograft (VCA), in particular hand transplantation. The risk of developing different types of neoplasms must also be considered. Landin et al. (74) reported basal cell carcinoma in a bilateral hand transplant recipient in 2006; the patient had received alemtuzumab and then combination therapy using tacrolimus, MMF and prednisone. 360 days after the transplantation, a nodular, rounded, pigmented and smooth lesion of 3 mm of diameter was found in the right nasal wing, which was removed without recurrence.

Kaufman et al. (18) reported the detection of mantle cell lymphoma in the third patient, who underwent hand transplantation by the Louisville group, and received alemtuzumab as an inducer, while tacrolimus and MMF were administered for maintenance.

Psychological aspects

The psychosocial factors in hand transplantation patients affect graft function and survival (75,76). This can be identified in the second hand transplantation in the world, which was performed in Lyon in 1998. This surgical procedure was successful although the patient did not adhere to the immunosuppressive management, nor to physical therapy; therefore, the patient required amputation of the graft in 2001 (14). This was related to the motivation and ability to incorporate transplantation experience in patients, which may lead to non-compliance with the pharmacological or rehabilitation regimen (77,78).

Some of the risk factors identified in psychological assessments in candidates for hand transplantation include social isolation, shame, decreased self-esteem, depressive coping style and poor quality of life (79). For this reason, it is important to conduct a detailed psychiatric interview in which transplantation is addressed, and to supplement it with psychological tests to assess body image adaptation and integrity, before and after the transplant (80-84). This is useful to perform the necessary therapeutic interventions, detect difficulties in the psychological integration process of the graft and, thus, obtain the best possible results in the long term.

Rehabilitation

Although part of the success of hand transplantation is attributed to surgical planning, it is not the only aspect to be taken into account to achieve a successful outcome (85). Rehabilitation programs are fundamental for the recovery of functionality in the transplanted hand, since a successful process requires patient commitment. It is also necessary to ensure that the patient will count on a team of experts that can provide guidance in terms of long-term recovery goals and expectations (86-91).

Before transplantation, therapists collect data on motion range, strength, stump sensitivity, and history of prosthesis use. They also find out if the patient feels pain, which is recorded by analogous verbal scale (48). As for the team of hand therapists, they should be responsible for the planning of therapy sessions, patient education and familiarization with information from transplant centers (32), which allows them to know the main complications and possible management. In addition, it is recommended to initiate therapy one week after surgery.

However, this therapy should be performed five days a week for an average of four hours a day for the first three months after transplantation (48), which requires commitment from the patient and the caregiver. Likewise, since the intensity in days and hours varies among patients, they should be adjusted based on recovery in each case (90,91).

Research on the emotional aspects of these patients has focused on depression, anxiety, personality disorders and substance abuse, since they are the most frequent alterations, and are associated with functionality recovery expectations after the transplantation (92,93). With this is mind, the need to assess the degree of satisfaction and improvement of the quality of life of transplanted patients arises. These aspects are assessed through evaluation questionnaires that have not been standardized yet in all hand-transplantation programs (94-97). Such questionnaires include a) DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand), which allows obtaining subjective and objective data from the patient, if a decrease of 15 points or more is found, a significant recovery in functionality is considered (98); b) Sollerman Hand Function Test, which incorporates tasks based on the patient’s work and takes into account the quality of the grip patterns and strength to perform them (99,100); and c) The Carroll Upper Extremity Function Test, which evaluates the functional recovery of the graft (101).

Finally, the role of the caregiver is fundamental during the first post-transplantation phase, since patients, especially those receiving bilateral hand transplants, depend on someone else for daily living activities for weeks or months after the surgery. This is exacerbated by the physical fatigue caused by rehabilitation, immunosuppressive drugs and the emotional challenges of the demanding general program (48). Therefore, throughout the process, the family must be included to be provided with the necessary tools to meet this challenge in the best possible way.

State of the art

Information on the experience of each transplant center in the world is compiled by the International Registry of Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation (IRHCTT), where reports are delivered voluntarily (non-mandatory). In total, 89 hand transplantations were performed between 1998 and 2010 (102). The last report was published in 2010 and provides data on the follow-up of 49 hand transplantations in 33 patients (18 bilateral and 17 unilateral). Follow-up was performed on 31 patients for minimum one year; the age range was 19 to 54 years, with a mean age of 32 years. Regarding sex, 31 patients were males. Finally, in relation to the transplantation itself, wrist (46%), distal forearm (19%), middle forearm (17%), proximal forearm (14%) and elbow (4%) were the most common.

As a result, 30 patients regained tactile and discriminative sensitivity. Motor recovery was initiated in the extrinsic muscles (gross motor), and then in the intrinsic muscles of the hand, for 9 to 15 months, in most transplanted patients (32). This motor return depends on the anatomical level of the transplant (distal is better than proximal), and on the postoperative rehabilitation regimen; sensory feedback is conditioned to the regeneration of the nerve (47). Quality of life improved in 75% of patients, which enabled them to resume their work activities. Moreover, the systematic review by Landin et al. found that the score decreased by an average of 27.6±19.04 points, through a disability comparison with the DASH survey, before and after the transplantation. Significant functional gains of the transplanted limb were also evidenced (103).

The main complications associated with transplantation are (32): a) opportunistic infections by CMV and herpes (29 cases); b) limited cutaneous necrosis (6 cases); c) permanent hyperglycemia (3 cases); d) arterial thrombosis (1 case); f) arteriovenous fistulae (1 case); g) end-stage kidney disease (1 case) that required hemodialysis 8 years after hand transplantation; h) transplant loss (1 case) due to poor adherence to treatment (29 months post-transplant), with conscious patient decision to suspend immunosuppression; i) intimal hyperplasia at day 245 post-transplant (1 case); j) bilateral transplantation involving bacterial infection (day 45 post-transplant), and k) bilateral hand and face transplantation, which resulted in death by cerebral anoxia (day 65 post-transplant).

However, IRHCTT does not take into account the cases reported by the Chinese groups, including Pei et al. (104), who reported 15 hand transplantations performed in 12 patients between 1999 and 2008, with a mean age of 34 years (19-52 years). Seven of these patients lost the grafts due to lack of adherence to the treatment. Overall, the results were poor, compared to transplantations performed in other centers around the world.

When comparing unilateral and bilateral transplantation with DASH scores, better functional results were observed in bilateral transplants. Even so, the results were positive for both groups from an overall perspective, which implies independence and return to the patients’ work activities (105,106).

Future of hand transplantation

Despite advances in immunosuppressive management and rehabilitation programs, there are still limitations, such as nerve regeneration of the transplanted hand, which occurs both at the distal and proximal levels. The case of proximal segment amputations is more relevant due to the difficulty of adapting to the prosthesis, which is why the transplant is required. Nevertheless, new research is expected to develop strategies to improve this aspect (3,107).

Immunosuppressive protocols are another important factor in hand transplantation, since there would be no graft survival without them. Currently, no protocols develop immunocompetence in the transplanted patient to avoid immunosuppression. Thus, these strategies are expected to be established in the future, to prevent the side effects of pharmacological immunosuppression.

It should be noted that protocols that include transient or sustained chimerism have already been developed; however, in this case a living donor is needed, which is not possible in hand transplantation (108).

Today, research on autotransfusion protocols and mesenchymal stem cells that regulate the possible decline of the immune response can be found, even if its use is limited to experimental studies. Although the use of mesenchymal bone marrow cells has shown to generate stable chimerism and prolong transplant survival in animal models, it has not yet been tested in humans (109,110).

Another modality under study is based on the use of bioreactors to prolong ex vivo, that is, outside the donor and the recipient, in an alternate environment, to extend the survival of the graft and to modulate its immunogenicity so as to improve the function of the graft (111).

It has also been mentioned that patients undergoing hand transplantation have a history of difficulty to adapt to prostheses, despite their interest and the interventions made by specialists to achieve this goal. This entailed high rejection rates of these devices (112,113). The options offered to patients with amputations of upper limbs have changed and expanded in order to cover the physical demands of potential candidates.

At present, advances have been made in prostheses adaptation and management, such as the case of selective muscular reinnervation in proximal amputation cases, which has allowed to develop the perception and position of the amputated segment. This technique consists of using non-functional muscles as amplifiers of the non-functional nerves and, thus, extending the nerve cover as distal as possible, approaching the distal end of the prosthesis (115,116).

However, the main causes of prostheses abandonment include adaptation difficulties, lack of participation in the selection of the prosthesis, functionality, patient expectations and education on the proper use of the prosthesis. Thus, people who participate in the selection of devices are more successful in adherence to their everyday use. (117).

In addition, there are six options in the market for the patients with upper limb amputation: not using a prosthesis, using passive prosthesis, body propulsion, electric propulsion, hybrid propulsion or specific activity propulsion. Choices must be made with the patient, so that proper assessment and advice can be provided for a correct selection (118). Because the devices do not fulfill all the activities of daily life, and to be able to respond to the demands of the users and their profession, it is necessary to use more than one device. To be successful and to meet patient expectations, their opinion on the process is essential (119,120).

Finally, hand transplantation and prosthesis adaptation should not be seen as mutually exclusive, but as treatment options that differ from the risk and benefit profile for the patient, and from their ethical, clinical, aesthetic and functional implications (121).

Conclusions

Hand transplantation, rather than a composite tissue transplant, should be considered as an organ transplant that depends on the comprehensive management by a multidisciplinary team, which requires a support network and motivation from the patient, along with compliance with pharmacological management.

When rejection occurs, it should be classified in order to determine the treatment. In consequence, a skin biopsy is considered as the gold standard for diagnosing acute rejection, although its role in chronic rejection should be questioned, since it can generate false negatives according to the depth of the sample.

Also, rehabilitation is a vital process to recover the functionality of the hand, as well as psychological accompaniment to prevent graft loss due to lack of adherence to the treatment.

Finally, new research is expected to create strategies to develop tolerance and thereby reduce management through immunosuppression. In addition, the pros and cons of hand transplantation, the experience of the transplant group, the side effects of short- and long-term drugs, and the possible complications associated with immunosuppression in each of the hand VAC cases should always be evaluated.

To see the management algorithm, please refer to Annex 1.

Conflict of interest

None stated by the authors.

Funding

None stated by the authors.

Acknowledgement

None stated by the authors.

Annex 1. Hand transplantation flow chart.

References

1.Siemionow MZ, Kulahci Y, Bozkurt M. Composite tissue allotransplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6 Suppl):e327-39. http://doi.org/dfzc5w.

2.Kuo YR, Chen CC, Shih HS, Goto S, Huang CW, Wang CT, et al. Prolongation of composite tissue allotransplant survival by treatment with bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells is correlated with T-cell regulation in a swine hind-limb model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):569-79. http://doi.org/c4fhn4.

3.Chim H, Amer H, Mardini S, Moran SL. Vascularized composite allotransplant in the realm of regenerative plastic surgery. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(7):1009-20. http://doi.org/f2xjrk.

4.Cendales LC, Rahmel A, Pruett TL. Allocation of vascularized composite allografts: what is it? Transplantation. 2012;93(11):1086-7. http://doi.org/f33jtt.

5.Federal Register of US. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Authenticated US Government Information. 2013;78(128):40033-42.

6.Murphy BD, Zuker RM, Borschel GH. Vascularized composite allotransplantation: an update on medical and surgical progress and remaining challenges. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(11):1449-55. http://doi.org/f5dqhg.

7.Rahmel A. Vascularized Composite Allografts: Procurement, Allocation, and Implementation. Curr Transplant Rep. 2014;1(3):173-182. http://doi.org/b42g.

8.Gordon CR. Composite tissue allografts: should we reconsider the terminology? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):464e-5e. http://doi.org/d6nsrq.

9.Pondrom S. What’s in a name? HRSA and the FDA consider adding vascularized composite allografts to their definition of “organs”. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(9):1953. http://doi.org/fb2wbr.

10.Castañeda DA, López LF, García AM, Segura A, Pérez N, Lozano E. Actitudes y conocimientos de intensivistas colombianos sobre donación y trasplantes: retos actuales para el país. Rev Fac Med. 2015;63(1):107-15. http://doi.org/b42h.

11.Gilbert R. Transplant is successful with a cadaver forearm. Med Trib Med News. 1964;5:20-22.

12.Merrill JP, Murray JE, Harrison JH, Guild WR. Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins. J Am Med Assoc. 1956;160(4):277-82.

13.Gilbert R. Hand transplanted from cadaver is reamputated. Med Trib Med News. 1964;5:23.

14.Kanitakis J, Jullien D, Petruzzo P, Hakim N, Claudy A, Revillard JP, et al. Clinicopathologic features of graft rejection of the first human hand allograft. Transplantation. 2003;76(4):688-93.

15.Jabłecki J. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the Polish program. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):433-42,viii. http://doi.org/bpns9j.

16.Petruzzo P, Dubernard JM. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the French program. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):411-6,vii. http://doi.org/fmhchk.

17.Hautz T, Engelhardt TO, Weissenbacher A, Kumnig M, Zelger B, Rieger M, et al. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the Innsbruck program. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):423-31,viii. http://doi.org/cpzjxc.

18.Kaufman CL, Breidenbach W. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update from the Louisville hand transplant program. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):417-21,vii-viii. http://doi.org/drqfc6.

19.Shores JT. Recipient screening and selection: who is the right candidate for hand transplantation. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):539-43,x. http://doi.org/bb2k7p.

20.McDiarmid SV, Azari KK. Donor-related issues in hand transplantation. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):545-52,x-xi. http://doi.org/d2tgj2.

21.Amer H, Carlsen BT, Dusso JL, Edwards BS, Moran SL. Hand transplantation. Minn Med. 2011;94(5):40-3.

22.Roth ES, Buck DG, Gorantla VS, Losee JE, Foust DE, Britton CA. The role of imaging in patient selection, preoperative planning, and postoperative monitoring in human upper extremity allotransplantation. J Transplant. 2014;169546. http://doi.org/b42p.

23.Weissenbacher A, Hautz T, Pratschke J, Schneeberger S. Vascularized composite allografts and solid organ transplants: similarities and differences. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013;18(6):640-4. http://doi.org/f5gtrz.

24.Bonastre J, Landin L, Diez J, Casado-Sánchez C, Casado-Pérez C. Factors influencing acute rejection of human hand allografts: a systematic review. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68(6):624-9. http://doi.org/f3z83f.

25.Schneeberger S, Khalifian S, Brandacher G. Immunosuppression and monitoring of rejection in hand transplantation. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2013;17(4):208-14. http://doi.org/b42q.

26.Tung TH, Mackinnon SE, Mohanakumar T. Combined treatment with CD40 costimulation blockade, T-cell depletion, low-dose irradiation, and donor bone marrow transfusion in limb allograft survival. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;55(5):512-8.

27.Uchi H, Terao H, Koga T, Furue M. Cytokines and chemokines in the epidermis. J Dermatol Sci. 2000;24(suppl 1):S29-S38. http://doi.org/bx44dv.

28.Sugita K, Kabashima K, Atarashi K, Shimauchi T, Kobayashi M, Tokura Y. Innate immunity mediated by epidermal keratinocytes promotes acquired immunity involving Langerhans cells and T cells in the skin. Clin Exp Immunol. 2007;147(1):176-83. http://doi.org/bw4xq4.

29.Hettiaratchy S, Melendy E, Randolph MA, Coburn RC, Neville DM Jr, Sachs DH, et al. Tolerance to composite tissue allografts across a major histocompatibility barrier in miniature swine. Transplantation. 2004;77(4):514-521.

30.Gaspari A, Katz SI. Induction and functional characterization of class II MHC (Ia) antigens on murine keratinocytes. J Immunol. 1988;140(9):2956-63.

31.Jones JW Jr, Ustüner ET, Zdichavsky M, Edelstein J, Ren X, Maldonado C, et al. Long-term survival of an extremity composite tissue allograft with FK506-mycophenolate mofetil therapy. Surgery. 1999;126(2):384-8.

32.Petruzzo P, Lanzetta M, Dubernard JM, Landin L, Cavadas P, Margreiter R, et al. The international registry on hand and composite tissue transplantation. Transplantation. 2010;90(12):1590-4. http://doi.org/ff92zp.

33.Schneeberger S, Gorantla VS, Brandacher G, Zeevi A, Demetris AJ, Lunz JG, et al. Upper extremity transplantation using a cell-based protocol to minimize immunosuppression. Ann Surg. 2013;257(2):345-51. http://doi.org/f4kft8.

34.Schneeberger S, Kreczy A, Brandacher G, Steurer W, Margreiter R. Steroid- and ATG-resistant rejection after double forearm transplantation responds to Campath-1H. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(8):1372-4. http://doi.org/c68tsg.

35.Schneeberger S, Ninkovic M, Gabl M, Ninkovic M, Hussl H, Rieger M, et al. First forearm transplantation: outcome at 3 years. Am J Transplant. 2007;7(7):1753-62. http://doi.org/cz85fc.

36.Schneeberger S, Ninkovic M, Piza-Katzer H, Gabl M, Hussl H, Rieger M, et al. Status 5 years after bilateral hand transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(4):834-41. http://doi.org/csx2j7.

37.Schuind F, Van Holder C, Mouraux D, Robert Ch, Meyer A, Salvia P, et al. The first Belgian hand transplantation—37 month term results. J Hand Surg Br. 2006;31(4):371-6. http://doi.org/d5crvt.

38.Petruzzo P, Kanitakis J, Badet L, Pialat JB, Boutroy S, Charpulat R, et al. Long-term follow-up in composite tissue allotransplantation: in-depth study of five (hand and face) recipients. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(4):808-16. http://doi.org/d2wsh8.

39.Gorantla VS, Brandacher G, Schneeberger S, Zheng XX, Donnenberg AD, Losee JE, et al. Favoring the risk-benefit balance for upper extremity transplantation—the Pittsburgh Protocol. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):511-20. http://doi.org/bvc9cx.

40.Hatrick NC, Tonkin MA. Hand transplantation: a current perspective. ANZ J Surg. 2001;71(4):245-51.

41.Lees VC, McCabe SJ. The rationale for hand transplantation. Transplantation. 2002;74(6):749-53.

42.Cetrulo CL Jr, Kovach SJ. Procurement of hand and arm allografts. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2013;17(4):232-8. http://doi.org/b43r.

43.Hautz T, Brandacher G, Zelger B, Gorantla VS, Lee AW, Pratschke J, et al. Immunologic aspects and rejection in solid organ versus reconstructive transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2010;42(9):3347-53. http://doi.org/dc4f48.

44.Ravindra KV, Wu S, Bozulic L, Xu H, Breidenbach WC, Ildstad ST. Composite tissue transplantation: a rapidly advancing field. Transplant Proc. 2008;40(5):1237-48. http://doi.org/cdggqw.

45.Murray JE. Organ transplantation (skin, kidney, heart) and the plastic surgeon. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1971;47(5):425-31.

46.Siemionow M, Nasir S. Immunologic responses in vascularized and nonvascularized skin allografts. J. Reconstr. Microsurg. 2008;24(7): 497-505. http://doi.org/d53vn8.

47.Gorantla VS, Demetris AJ. Acute and chronic rejection in upper extremity transplantation: what have we learned? Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):481-93,IX. http://doi.org/cq5bvf.

48.Severance G, Walsh L. Rehabilitation after bilateral hand transplantation in the quadrimembral patient: review and recommendations. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2013;17(4):215-20. http://doi.org/b43s.

49.Lovaski D, Foust DE, Losee JE, Lee WP, Brandacher G, Gorantla VS. Helping hands: Carrying for the upper extremity transplant patient. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2011;23(3):505-17. http://doi.org/d6gw65.

50.Schneeberger S, Gorantla VS, van Riet RP, Lanzetta M, Vereecken P, van Holde C, et al. Atypical acute rejection after hand transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(3):688-96. http://doi.org/b34vv5.

51.Brandacher G, Lee WP, Schneeberger S. Minimizing immunosuppression in hand transplantation. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2012;8(7):673-83,quiz 684. http://doi.org/b43t.

52.Cendales LC, Kanitakis J, Schneeberger S, Burns C, Ruiz P, Landin L, et al. The Banff 2007 working classification of skin-containing composite tissue allograft pathology. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(7):1396-400. http://doi.org/cb93t7.

53.Hautz T, Zelger B, Grahammer J, Krapf C, Amberger A, Brandacher G, et al. Molecular markers and targeted therapy of skin rejection in composite tissue allotransplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2010;10(5):1200-9. http://doi.org/dwwf8f.

54.Hautz T, Zelger B, Brandacher G, Mueller H, Grahammer J, Zelger B, et al. Histopathologic characterization of mild rejection (grade I) in skin biopsies of human hand allografts. Transpl Int. 2012;25(1):56-63. http://doi.org/ch2p7c.

55.Kanitakis J, McGregor B, Badet L, Petruzzo P, Morelon E, Devauchelle B, et al. Absence of c4d deposition in human composite tissue (hands and face) allograft biopsies: an immunoperoxidase study. Transplantation. 2007;84(2):265-7. http://doi.org/bpffj3.

56.Landin L, Cavadas PC, Ibanez J, Roger I, Vera-Sempere F. CD3+-mediated rejection and C4d deposition in two composite tissue (bilateral hand) allograft recipients after induction with alemtuzumab. Transplantation. 2009;87(5):776-781. http://doi.org/cs3g38.

57.Weissenbacher A, Hautz T, Zelger B, Zelger BG, Mayr V, Brandacher G, et al. Antibody-mediated rejection in hand transplantation. Transpl Int. 2014;27(2):e13-7. http://doi.org/b43v.

58.Swearingen B, Ravindra K, Xu H, Wu S, Breidenbach WC, Ildstad ST. Science of composite tissue allotransplantation. Transplantation. 2008;86(5):627-35. http://doi.org/fdgw87.

59.Unadkat JV, Schneeberger S, Horibe EH, Goldbach C, Solari MG, Washington KM, et al. Composite tissue vasculopathy and degeneration following multiple episodes of acute rejection in reconstructive transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2010;10(2):251-61. http://doi.org/dpsmfk.

60.Kanitakis J, Jullien D, Petruzzo P, Francès C, Claudy A, Revillard J, et al. Immunohistologic studies of the skin of human hand allografts: our experience with two patients. Transplant Proc. 2001;33 (1-2):1722.

61.Shirwan H. Chronic allograft rejection. Do the Th2 cells preferentially induced by indirect alloantigen recognition play a dominant role? Transplantation. 1999;68(6):715-26.

62.Zheng X, Pei G, Qiu Y, Zhu L, Gu L. Dynamic observation of serum cytokines in the patients with hand transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2002;34(8):3405-9.

63.Kaufman CL, Ouseph R, Blair B, Kutz JE, Tsai TM, Scheker LR, et al. Graft vasculopathy in clinical hand transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2012;12(4):1004-16. http://doi.org/b43w.

64.Chelmoński A, Jablecki J, Szajerka T. Insidious course of cytomegalovirus infection in hand transplant recipient: case report, diagnostics, and treatment. Transplant Proc. 2011;43(7):2827-30. http://doi.org/fp8f8q.

65.Jones JW, Gruber SA, Barker JH, Breidenbach WC. Successful hand transplantation. One-year follow-up. Louisville Hand Transplant Team. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(7):468-73. http://doi.org/dp2xqr.

66.Schneeberger S, Lucchina S, Lanzetta M, Brandacher G, Bösmüller C, Steurer W, et al. Cytomegalovirus: related complications in hand transplantation. Transplantation. 2005;80(4):441-7.

67.Avery RK. Update on infections in composite tissue allotransplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013;18(6):659-64. http://doi.org/b43x.

68.Bonatti H, Brandacher G, Margreiter R, Schneeberger S. Infectious complications in three double hand recipients: experience from a single center. Transplant Proc. 2009;41(2):517-20. http://doi.org/d8m4sr.

69.Ravindra KV, Buell JF, Kaufman CL, Blair B, Marvin M, Nagubandi R, et al. Hand transplantation in the United States: experience with 3 patients. Surgery. 2008;144(4):638-43, discussion 643-4. http://doi.org/dbgf72.

70.Bonatti H, Lass-Flörl C, Zelger B, Lottersberger C, Singh N, Pruett TL, et al. Alternaria alternata soft tissue infection in a forearm transplant recipient. Surg Infect. 2007;8(5);539-44. http://doi.org/dsdwh8.

71.Hammond SP. Infections in composite tissue allograft recipients. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2013;27(2):379-93. http://doi.org/f42xrt.

72.Ravindra KV, Ildstad ST. Immunosuppressive protocols and immunological challenges related to hand transplantation. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):467-79,IX. http://doi.org/bvbm5k.

73.Vajdic CM, McDonald SP, McCredie MR, van Leeuwen MT, Stewart JH, Law M, et al. Cancer incidence before and after kidney transplantation. JAMA. 2006;296(23):2823-31. http://doi.org/fq9wps.

74.Landin L, Cavadas PC, Ibanez J, Roger I. Malignant skin tumor in a composite tissue (bilateral hand) allograft recipient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(1):20e-21e. http://doi.org/b8bkx8.

75.Kumnig M, Jowsey SG, DiMartini AF. Psychological aspects of hand transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2014;19(2):188-95. http://doi.org/f54mcz.

76.Foroohar A, Elliott RM, Kim TW, Breidenbach W, Shaked A, Levin LS. The history and evolution of hand transplantation. Hand Clinics. 2011;27(4):405-9,VII. http://doi.org/b4h8zn.

77.Klapheke M, Marcell C, Taliaferro G, Creamer B. Psychiatric assessment of candidates for hand transplantation. Microsurgery. 2000;20(8):453-7.

78.Carosella ED, Pradeu T. Transplantation and identity: a dangerous split? Lancet. 2006;368(9531):183-184. http://doi.org/ddqhwg.

79.Kumnig M, Jowsey SG, Rumpold G, Weissenbacher A, Hautz T, Engelhardt TO, et al. The psychological assessment of candidates for reconstructive hand transplantation. Transpl Int. 2012;25(5):573-85. http://doi.org/b43z.

80.Tobin GR, Breidenbach WC, Klapheke MM, Bentley FR, Pidwell DJ, Simmons PD. Ethical considerations in the early composite tissue allograft experience: a review of the Louisville Ethics Program. Transplant Proc. 2005;37(2):1392-5. http://doi.org/c557n3.

81.Klapheke MM. The role of the psychiatrist in organ transplantation. Bull Menninger Clin. 1999;63(1):13-39.

82.Landin L, Cavadas PC, Nthumba P, Muñoz G, Gallego R, Belloch V, et al. Morphological and functional evaluation of visual disturbances in a bilateral hand allograft recipient. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(4):700-4. http://doi.org/fdpznk.

83.Zhu L, Pei G, Gu L, Hong J. Psychological consequences derived during process of human hand allograft. Chin Med J. 2002;115(11):1660-3.

84.Schuind F, Abramowicz D, Schneeberger S. Hand transplantation: the state of the art. J Hand Surg Eur. 2007;32(1):2-17. http://doi.org/dcrjqf.

85.Lanzetta M, Dubernard JM, Owen ER, Nolli R, Martin X, Dawahra M, et al. Surgical planning of human hand transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2001;33(1-2):683.

86.Cavadas PC, Landin L, Thione A, Rodríguez-Pérez JC, Garcia-Bello MA, Ibañez J, et al. The Spanish experience with hand, forearm, and arm transplantation. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):443-53,VIII. http://doi.org/fgvktt.

87.Lee J, Garcia AM, Lee WP, Munin MC. Inpatient rehabilitation challenges in a quadrimembral amputee after bilateral hand transplantation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;90(8):688-93. http://doi.org/ftt69x.

88.Ravindra KV, Gorantla VS. Development of an upper extremity transplant program. Hand Clin. 2011;27(4):531-8,X. http://doi.org/fqhh87.

89.Amirlack B, González R, Gorlanta V, Breidenbach WC 3rd, Tobin GR. Creating a hand transplant program. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34(2):279-89,X. http://doi.org/cd2wdn.

90.Bueno E, Benjamin MJ, Sisk G, Sampson CE, Carty M, Pribaz JJ, et al. Rehabilitation following hand transplantation. Hand (NY). 2014;9(1):9-15. http://doi.org/b433.

91.Kaufman CL, Blair B, Murphy E, Breidenbach WB. A new option for amputees: transplantation of the hand. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):395-404.

92.Gordon CR, Siemionow M. Requirements for the development of a hand transplantation program. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63(3):262-73. http://doi.org/dzcz8k.

93.Carta I, Convertino O, Cornaggia CM. Psychological investigation protocol of candidates for hand transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2001;33(1-2):621-2.

94.Feurer ID, Russell RT, Pinson CW. Incorporating quality of life and patient satisfaction measures into a transplant outcomes assessment program: technical and practical considerations. Prog Transplant. 2007;17(2):121-8.

95.Dubernard JM, Petruzzo P, Lanzetta M, Parmentier H, Martin X, Dawahra M, et al. Functional results of the first human double-hand transplantation. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):128-36. http://doi.org/dh3gdd.

96.Szajerka T, Klimczak A, Jablecki J. Chimerism in hand transplantation. Ann Transplant. 2011;16(1):83-9.

97.Lanzetta M, Nolli R, Borgonovo A, Owen ER, Dubernard JM, Kapila H, et al. Hand transplantation: ethics, immunosuppression and indications. J Hand Surg Br. 2001;26(6):511-6. http://doi.org/ftrpqd.

98.Solway S, Beaton DE, McConnell S, Bombardier C. The DASH Outcome Measure User’s Manual. 3rd ed. Toronto: Institute for Work & Health; 2012.

99.Brogårdh C, Persson AL, Sjolund BH. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Sollerman hand function test in patients with chronic stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29(2):145-54. http://doi.org/cb6djs.

100.Sollerman C, Ejeskar A. Sollerman hand function test. A standardised method and its use in tetraplegic patients. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1995;29(2):167-76.

101.Carroll D. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis. 1965;18:479-91.

102.Siemionow M, Gharb BB, Rampazzo A. Successes and lessons learned after more than a decade of upper extremity and face transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013;18(6):633-9. http://doi.org/f5gtp3.

103.Landin L, Bonastre J, Casado-Sanchez C, Diez J, Ninkovic M, Lanzetta M, et al. Outcomes with respect to disabilities of the upper limb after hand allograft transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int. 2012;25(4):424-32. http://doi.org/b455.

104.Pei G, Xiang D, Gu L, Wang G, Zhu L, Yu L, et al. A report of 15 hand allotransplantations in 12 patients and their outcomes in China. Transplantation. 2012;94(10):1052-9. http://doi.org/f4fs36.

105.Breidenbach WC, Gonzales NR, Kaufman CL, Klapheke M, Tobin GR, Gorantla VS. Outcomes of the first 2 American hand transplants at 8 and 6 years posttransplant. J Hand Surg Am. 2008;33(7):1039-47. http://doi.org/d7wjf5.

106.Bernardon L, Gazarian A, Petruzzo P, Packham T, Guillot M, Guigal V, et al. Bilateral hand transplantation: Functional benefits assessment in five patients with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years (range 4-13 years). J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(9):1171-83. http://doi.org/f7qp9m.

107.Plock JA, Schnider JT, Solari MG, Zheng XX, Gorantla VS. Perspectives on the use of mesenchymal stem cells in vascularized composite allotransplantation. Front Immunol. 2013;4:175. http://doi.org/b458.

108.Le Blanc K, Rasmusson I, Sundberg B, Götherström C, Hassan M, Uzunel M, et al. Treatment of severe acute graft-versus-host disease with third party haploidentical mesenchymal stem cells. Lancet. 2004;363(9419):1439-41. http://doi.org/ffnndf.

109.Alagesan S, Griffin MD. Autologous and allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells in organ transplantation: what do we know about their safety and efficacy? Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2014;19(1):65-72. http://doi.org/f5m34j.

110.Granger DK, Briedenbach WC, Pidwell DJ, Jones JW, Baxter-Lowe LA, Kaufman CL. Lack of donor hyporesponsiveness and donor chimerism after clinical transplantation of the hand. Transplantation. 2002;74(11):1624-30.

111.Rennert RC, Sorkin M, Wong VW, Gurtner GC. Organ-level tissue engineering using bioreactor systems and stem cells: implications for transplant surgery. Curr Stem Cell Res Ther. 2014;9(1):2-9.

112.Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236-57. http://doi.org/dfm8dm.

113.Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Multivariate prediction of upper limb prosthesis acceptance or rejection. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2008;3(4):181-92.

114.Biddiss E, Chau T. The roles of predisposing characteristics, established need, and enabling resources on upper extremity prosthesis use and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(2):71-84.

115.Dumanian GA, Ko JH, O’Shaughnessy KD, Kim PS, Wilson CJ, Kuiken TA. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(3):863-9. http://doi.org/bh57g4.

116.Kuiken TA, Li G, Lock BA, Lipschutz RD, Miller LA, Stubblefield KA, et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA . 2009;301(6):619-28. http://doi.org/cvcj2t.

117.Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86(12):977-87. http://doi.org/bq2xg9.

118.Lake C, Dodson R. Progressive upper limb prosthetics. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2006;17(1):49-72. http://doi.org/bxd3vr.

119.Smurr LM, Gulick K, Yancosek K, Ganz O. Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success. J Hand Ther. 2008;21(2):160-75,quiz 176. http://doi.org/c8nfmn.

120.Klarich J, Brueckner I. Amputee rehabilitation and preprosthetic care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(1):75-91. http://doi.org/b46f.

121.Carlsen BT, Prigge P, Peterson J. Upper extremity limb loss: functional restoration from prosthesis and targeted reinnervation to transplantation. J Hand Ther. 2014;27(2):106-13, quiz 114. http://doi.org/f52nsb.