ShareThis Page

Are face transplants still research, or regular care?

| Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017, 10:39 p.m.
In this Jan. 25, 2017, photo, face transplant recipient Andy Sandness is hugged by Dr. Samir Mardini, foreground, during a visit to the Saint Marys Hospital campus at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Mardini led a medical team to perform Sandness' face transplant surgery, the first performed at the medical center. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Is replacing a severely disfigured person's face with one from a dead donor ready to be called regular care, something insurers should cover? Mayo Clinic has raised that question by doing the first U.S. face transplant that's not part of research.

Faces, hands, wombs and even a penis have been transplanted in recent years. Unlike liver or heart transplants, these novel procedures are not life-saving but life-enhancing.

Who pays for care that can cost $700,000 or more is a growing concern. Ethics and liability issues also may arise when they're done without the oversight of an institutional review board, a panel that ensures research participants' rights are protected.

The group that runs the nation's organ transplant system, the United Network for Organ Sharing, plans a conference to help guide policy.

“It's time to come together and really ask the question, ‘Is this going to become a standard of care?'” said Dr. Scott Levin, a University of Pennsylvania surgeon who heads the UNOS panel on this.

He has done several hand transplants and no longer considers them experimental, though insurers won't pay. Worldwide, about 100 hand, face or other, newer body-part transplants have been done, and “that's not a lot of cases” to judge safety and effectiveness for some types, he said.

Andy Sandness' operation in June was Mayo's first face transplant. Worldwide, roughly two dozen have been done, about half of them in the United States. Four recipients have died.

At Mayo, “we wanted to do it as a clinical program” and felt there was no research question to be answered because the operation uses standard surgical techniques, said the plastic surgeon who led it, Dr. Samir Mardini. Without a transplant, Sandness would have needed 15 other reconstructive procedures and the cost would be 30 to 40 percent higher, Mardini said.

Hospital management and multiple committees reviewed the case, including an ethics panel, a social worker and transplant psychiatrist, to ensure Sandness knew the risks and was giving informed consent.

“It's critically important that he understand what he would be putting himself through,” Mardini said.

Sandness' insurance company would not agree in advance to pay; so, a fund from a donor to start a hand and face transplant center at Mayo paid. Talks on paying for after-care are ongoing.

The long-term medical and psychological effects will be studied as part of formal research, even though the operation itself was not, Mardini said.

“I don't particularly agree with the argument that it's not research,” said bioethicist Arthur Caplan, who advised New York University on its first face transplant in 2015.

There's a higher bar to ensuring informed consent for research versus a new therapy, and “questions about competence, experience and even liability are different” when something is called regular care, Caplan said. “In my view it's still highly experimental.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.