No abstract

The clinical augmentation of bone currently involves the use of autogenous or allogeneic bone grafts and synthetic materials, all of which are associated with limitations. Research on the safe enhancement of bone formation concerns the potential value of scaffolds, stem cells, gene therapy, and chemical and mechanical signals. Optimal scaffolds are engineered to provide mechanical stability while supporting osteogenesis, osteoconduction and/or osteoinduction. Scaffold materials include natural or synthetic polymers, ceramics, and composites. The resorption, mechanical strength and efficacy of these materials can be manipulated through structural and chemical design parameters. Cell-seeded scaffolds contain stem cells or progenitor cells, such as culture-expanded marrow stromal cells and multipotent skeletal progenitor cells sourced from other tissues. Despite extensive evidence from proof-of-principle studies, bone tissue engineering has not translated to clinical practice. Much of the research involves in vitro and animal models that do not replicate potential clinical applications. Problem areas include cell sources and numbers, over-reliance on existing scaffold materials, optimum delivery of factors, control of transgene expression, vascularization, integration with host bone, and the capacity to form bone and marrow structures in vivo. Current thinking re-emphasizes the potential of biomimetic materials to stimulate, enhance, or control bone's innate regenerative capacity at the implantation site.

y Both authors contributed equally.We report on the management of the first full-face transplantation in a sensitized recipient with a positive preoperative crossmatch and subsequent antibodymediated rejection (AMR). The recipient is a 45-year-old female who sustained extensive chemical burns, with residual poor function and high levels of circulating anti-HLA antibodies. With a clear immunosuppression plan and salvage options in place, a full-face allotransplant was performed using a crossmatch positive donor. Despite plasmapheresis alongside a standard induction regimen, clinical signs of rejection were noted on postoperative day 5 (POD5). Donor-specific antibody (DSA) titers rose with evidence of C4d deposits on biopsy. By POD19, biopsies showed Banff Grade III rejection. Combination therapy consisting of plasmapheresis, eculizumab, bortezomib and alemtuzumab decreased DSA levels, improved clinical exam, and by 6 months postop she had no histological signs of rejection. This case is the first to demonstrate evidence and management of AMR in face allotransplantation. Our findings lend support to the call for an update to the Banff classification of rejection in vascularized composite tissue allotransplantation (VCA) to include AMR, and for further studies to better classify the histology and mechanism of action of AMR in VCA.