Background: A great deal of ethical debate has accompanied the introduction of facial tissue allotransplantation into the clinical arena. Critics contend that the risks of lifelong immunosuppression do not justify the benefits of this new non-life-saving reconstructive procedure, whereas proponents argue that they do. Absent from this debate are the opinions of individuals with real-life experiences with the risks and benefits associated with this new treatment.
Methods: In this study, the authors question facially disfigured individuals (n = 33) and the reconstructive surgeons who treat them (n = 45), organ transplant recipients (n = 42) and the professionals who manage their immunosuppression medication (n = 37), and healthy volunteer controls (n = 148) to determine the amount of risk they are willing to accept to receive facial tissue allotransplantation. A survey with psychometrically reliable and validated questions was administered to the above five groups, and appropriate statistical analysis was used to analyze and compare the data within and between groups.
Results: Of the five groups studied, reconstructive surgeons would accept the least amount of risk for a facial tissue allotransplant, followed by transplant specialists, then kidney transplant recipients, then facially disfigured individuals, and finally healthy control volunteers, who would accept the most amount of risk.
Conclusions: The authors' data indicate that reconstructive surgeons are the least tolerant of risks compared with the other groups studied concerning facial tissue allotransplantation. This is particularly important because they are the primary caregivers to facially disfigured patients and, as such, will be the ones to lead the effort to move this new reconstructive treatment into the clinical arena.