Investigation of Risk Acceptance and Expectations in Facial Allotransplantation.
- Author:
Sang Ryul PARK
1
;
Ji Hoon KIM
;
Jae Ha HWANG
;
Kwang Seog KIM
;
Sam Yong LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea. pskim@chonnam.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Facial allotransplantation;
Risk acceptance;
Expectations
- MeSH:
Surveys and Questionnaires;
Humans;
Immunosuppression;
Quality of Life;
Referral and Consultation;
Rejection (Psychology);
Risk Assessment;
Students, Medical;
Transplants
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
2010;37(5):555-560
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Facial allotransplantation (FA) could provide an excellent alternative to current treatments for facial disfigurement. However, despite being technically feasible, there continues to be various ethical and psychosocial issues associated with the risks and benefits of performing FA. The purpose of this study is to investigate risk acceptance and expectations in FA. METHODS: In a quantitative assessment of risk versus benefit with respect to FA, from 2004 to 2008, Barker et al. developed and published a questionnaire-based instrument (Louisville Instrument for Transplantation [LIFT]), which contained 237 standardized questions. In the current study, the authors assessed risk versus benefits and expectations of FA using a Korean version of the LIFT. Respondents in three study groups (lay public, n=140; medical students, n=120; doctors, n=34) were questioned about risk acceptance as related to immunosuppression and tissue rejection, and expectations as related to quality of life improvement, and functional and aesthetic outcomes. A summary of the data has been provided and statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the three study groups, results indicated that doctors accept the least amount of risk for a facial allotransplant, followed by medical students, and finally lay public. There was a significant statistical difference in three of the four questions regarding risk acceptance between the groups (p < 0.05). In general, lay public exhibited higher expectations for facial allotransplantation than the other groups. Additionally, there was a significant statistical difference in the importance of aesthetic outcome between the groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The authors' data indicate the three populations have vastly different levels of risk acceptance and expectations with regard to FA. Therefore, it is very important that surgeons establish clear, open, and thorough communication with patients in their consultations regarding FA. This is particularly important with respect to whether or not a patient's level of risk acceptance and expectations are progmatic.
