Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41(05): 505-512
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.5.505
Original Article

Risk Acceptance and Expectations of Laryngeal Allotransplantation

Hyun Kyo Jo
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
,
Jang Wan Park
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
,
Jae Ha Hwang
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
,
Kwang Seog Kim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
,
Sam Yong Lee
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
,
Jun Ho Shin
Department of Preventive Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Laryngeal allotransplantation (LA) is a technique involving transplantation of a deceased donor's larynx into a recipient, and it may be substituted for conventional laryngeal reconstruction. There are widely different views on LA, as the recipient is administered continuous, potentially life-threatening, immunosuppressive therapy for a functional or aesthetic result, which is not directly related to life extension. The purpose of this study was to analyze the difference in risk acceptance and expectations of LA between four population groups.

Methods A survey was performed to examine patients' risk acceptance and expectations of LA. The survey included 287 subjects in total (general public, n=100; kidney transplant recipients, n=53; post-laryngectomy patients, n=34; doctors, n=100), using a Korean translated version of the louisville instrument for transplantation (LIFT) questionnaire.

Results All four groups responded differently at various levels of their perception in risk acceptance and expectations. The kidney transplant recipients reported the highest risk acceptance and expectations, and the doctor group the lowest.

Conclusions This study examined the disparate perception between specific population groups of the risks and benefits of using LA for the promotion of the quality of life. By addressing the information gaps about LA in the different populations that have been highlighted from this survey, we suggest that LA can become a more viable alternative to classical surgery with resultant improved quality of life for patients.

Keywords

Larynx - Reconstructive surgical procedures - Patient acceptance of healthcare - Data collection


Publication History

Received: 26 March 2014

Accepted: 14 June 2014

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2014. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 McNeil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 982-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Work WP, Boles R. Larynx: replantation in the dog. Arch Otolaryngol 1965; 82: 401-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ogura JH, Kawasaki M, Takenouchi S. et al. Replantation and transplantation of the canine larynx. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1966; 75: 295-312
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Silver CE, Rosen RG, Dardik I. et al. Transplantation of the canine larynx. Ann Surg 1970; 172: 142-150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kluyskens P, Ringoir S. Follow-up of a human larynx transplantation. Laryngoscope 1970; 80: 1244-1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Strome M, Stein J, Esclamado R. et al. Laryngeal transplantation and 40-month follow-up. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1676-1679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tintinago LF, Herrera DA, Medina E. et al. Ultrasonographic evaluation of a vascularized tracheal transplantation. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 1145-1149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Duque E, Duque J, Nieves M. et al. Management of larynx and trachea donors. Transplant Proc 2007; 39: 2076-2078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lorenz RR, Hicks DM, Shields Jr RW. et al. Laryngeal nerve function after total laryngeal transplantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 131: 1016-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Birchall MA, Lorenz RR, Berke GS. et al. Laryngeal transplantation in 2005: a review. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khariwala SS, Lorenz RR, Strome M. Laryngeal transplantation: research, clinical experience, and future goals. Semin Plast Surg 2007; 21: 234-241
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tobin GR, Breidenbach 3rd WC, Ildstad ST. et al. The history of human composite tissue allotransplantation. Transplant Proc 2009; 41: 466-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Barker JH, Vossen M, Banis Jr JC. The technical, immunological and ethical feasibility of face transplantation. J Surg 2004; 2: 8-12
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Shapiro PA, Kornfeld DS. Psychiatric aspects of head and neck cancer surgery. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1987; 10: 87-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cunningham M, Majzoub R, Brouha PR. et al. Risk acceptance in composite tissue allotranplantation reconstructive procedures. Eur J Trauma 2004; 30: 12-16
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brouha P, Naidu D, Cunningham M. et al. Risk acceptance in composite-tissue allotransplantation reconstructive procedures. Microsurgery 2006; 26: 144-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Barker JH, Furr A, Cunningham M. et al. Investigation of risk acceptance in facial transplantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 663-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Reynolds CC, Martinez SA, Furr A. et al. Risk acceptance in laryngeal transplantation. Laryngoscope 2006; 116: 1770-1775
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Park SR, Kim JH, Hwang JH. et al. Investigation of risk acceptance and expectations in facial allotransplantation. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 37: 555-560
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Lee DH, Kim JH, Hwang JH. et al. Investigation of risk acceptance and expectations in hand and foot allotransplantations. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 38: 427-437
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kim HM, Kim JH, Hwang JH. et al. Evaluation of reliability and validity of the louisville instrument for transplantation (LIFT) in Korean population. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 38: 245-250
    Google Scholar