: The first facial transplantation in 2005 ushered in a new era in reconstructive surgery, offering new possibilities for the repair of severe disfigurements previously limited by conventional techniques. Advances in allograft design, computerized preoperative planning, surgical technique, and postoperative revisions have helped push the boundaries in this new frontier of vascularized composite allotransplantation. Over the past 12 years, 40 of these procedures have been performed across the world, offering the field the opportunity to reflect on current outcomes. Successes achieved in the brief history of facial transplantation have resulted in a new set of obstacles the field must now overcome. In this review, we aim to highlight the achievements, major challenges, and future directions of this rapidly evolving field.

Both O/MS and DM minipigs express a human-like disease phenotype, and both presented bone-healing impairment around dental implants. Our finding of no significant difference between type 2 DM and O/MS in bone formation around implants provides evidence that further investigation of the impact of O/MS is warranted.

The academic contribution of female plastic surgeons has substantially increased in number and has become more evenly distributed across subspecialty topics.

Educational interventions hold much promise for increasing the general public's awareness of facial transplantation and willingness to participate in donation of facial allografts.

Background: Simulation is progressively being integrated into surgical training; however, its utility in plastic surgery has not been well described. The authors present a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing digital simulation to a surgical textbook for conceptualization of cleft lip repair. Methods: Thirty-five medical students were randomized to learning cleft repair using a simulator or a textbook. Participants outlined markings for a standard cleft lip repair before (preintervention) and after (postintervention) 20 minutes of studying their respective resource. Two expert reviewers blindly graded markings according to a 10-point scale, on two separate occasions. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Paired and independent t tests were performed to compare scoring between study groups. A validated student satisfaction survey was administered to assess the two resources separately. Results: Intrarater grading reliability was excellent for both raters for preintervention and postintervention grading (rater 1, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.94 and 0.95, respectively; rater 2, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.60 and 0.92, respectively; p < 0.001). Mean preintervention performances for both groups were comparable (0.82 ± 1.17 versus 0.64 ± 0.95; p = 0.31). Significant improvement from preintervention to postintervention performance was observed in the textbook (0.82 ± 1.17 versus 3.50 ± 1.62; p < 0.001) and simulator (0.64 ± 0.95 versus 6.44 ± 2.03; p < 0.001) groups. However, the simulator group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement (5.81 ± 2.01 versus 2.68 ± 1.49; p < 0.001). Participants reported the simulator to be more effective (p < 0.001) and a clearer tool (p < 0.001), that allowed better learning (p < 0.001) than textbooks. All participants would recommend the simulator to others. Conclusion: The authors present evidence from a prospective, randomized, blinded trial supporting online digital simulation as a superior educational resource for novice learners, compared with traditional textbooks.