International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2011
Facial transplantation revisited: findings from the very first public engagement exercise.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gwanmesia Ivo, Clarke Alex, Butler Peter E M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Facial transplantation has emerged as a treatment option in facial reconstruction. In this pilot study, we investigate initial attitudes to this concept in relevant patient and health professional groups.
METHOD: Attitudes towards facial transplantation as a procedure were examined among 200 participants, including 30 nurses, 30 doctors, 30 plastic surgeons, 30 renal transplant patients, 30 medical students, 30 members of the lay public and 20 patients with facial disfigurements through the use of a questionnaire.
RESULTS: Identity was important for all participating groups with 83.5% positive about receiving a facial transplant provided no resemblance to donor. There was an inverse relationship between the side effects of the immunosuppressant regimen and organ rejection and the willingness to undergo facial transplantation when compared to other forms of organ transplantation. A relationship to the recipient and familiarity with a transplant programme were positively related to potential donation.
CONCLUSION: This study identifies the key issues of altered identity and the understanding of immunosuppression and surgical risk as the focus for research and patient selection. The ethical aspects of facial transplantation are not addressed in this study, and have been addressed elsewhere.
METHOD: Attitudes towards facial transplantation as a procedure were examined among 200 participants, including 30 nurses, 30 doctors, 30 plastic surgeons, 30 renal transplant patients, 30 medical students, 30 members of the lay public and 20 patients with facial disfigurements through the use of a questionnaire.
RESULTS: Identity was important for all participating groups with 83.5% positive about receiving a facial transplant provided no resemblance to donor. There was an inverse relationship between the side effects of the immunosuppressant regimen and organ rejection and the willingness to undergo facial transplantation when compared to other forms of organ transplantation. A relationship to the recipient and familiarity with a transplant programme were positively related to potential donation.
CONCLUSION: This study identifies the key issues of altered identity and the understanding of immunosuppression and surgical risk as the focus for research and patient selection. The ethical aspects of facial transplantation are not addressed in this study, and have been addressed elsewhere.