Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118859›Full record

ReviewSeminars in plastic surgery2024

Computerized Surgical Planning in Face Transplantation.

Alay Shah, Sachin Chinta, Eduardo D Rodriguez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alay ShahHansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.
Sachin ChintaHansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.
Eduardo D RodriguezHansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, New York.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Face transplantation (FT) has emerged as a critical intervention for patients with complex facial deformities unsuitable for conventional reconstructive methods. It aims to restore essential functions such as facial expression, mastication, and speech, while also improving psychosocial health. The procedure utilizes various surgical principles, addressing unique challenges of craniofacial complexity and diverse injury patterns. The integration of Computerized Surgical Planning (CSP) leverages computer-aided technologies to enhance preoperative strategy, intraoperative navigation, and postoperative assessment. CSP utilizes three-dimensional computed tomography, printing, angiography, and navigation systems, enabling surgeons to anticipate challenges and reduce intraoperative trial and error. Through four clinical cases, including a groundbreaking combined face and bilateral hand transplant, CSP's role in FT is highlighted by its ability to streamline operative processes and minimize surgical revisions. The adoption of CSP has led to fewer cadaveric rehearsals, heightened operative precision, and greater alignment with preoperative plans. Despite CSP's advancements, it remains complementary to, rather than a replacement for, clinical expertise. The demand for technological resources and multidisciplinary teamwork is high, but the improved surgical outcomes and patient quality of life affirm CSP's value in FT. The technology has become a staple in reconstructive surgery, signaling a step forward in the evolution of complex surgical interventions.

Indexed as

Computerized Surgical PlanningCSPface transplantfacial reconstructionfacial traumatransplantvascularized composite allograftsVCA

Identifiers

PMID39118859
PMCPMC11305830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.