Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_892_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

plus to all concerned. Perhaps most stimulating has been the ability to interact with someone who is totally interested in what goes on in the eld. The constant stimula­tion and conversation that happens during the case keeps everyone on their toes. An additional benet is that the fellows allow “one point” of contact with multiple other services such as neurosurgery, oculoplastic, orthopedics, and OMFS. It allows for better integration into a seamless care paradigm.

and malignant disease treatment in the head and neck. Thus, our approach was col­laborative from the onset of the shared space and disease line that is head and neck cancer. We brought a fellowship trained OMFS microvascular surgeon onto our disease service line several years ago. He is involved in resident and fellow training for both OMFS and OHNS and clinically operates within our head and neck disease team. As more training programs for OMFS emerge, more collaboration between our specialties are eminent. We have seen the skills sets of both services compliment each other and enhance the care of head and neck cancer. Furthermore, the differ­ences in training lead to shared teaching benets for fellows trained by programs that integrate OMFS and OHNS expertise. In essence, the more we have grown our team and welcomed capable interested individuals into the clinical program and training program, the busier and more successful our team has become. I often dis­cuss with fellows that “good is good,” and we want good and interested talent on our teams. So it matters less the training discipline or background than it does the skills of the individuals. The transition from PS to OHNS- or OMFS-based reconstruction likely represented a surge in interest from our elds rather than a change needed based on skill. And, I believe that as we move toward a shared future, I would expect both OHNS and OMFS to thrive together to continue to improve the quality and capacity of head and neck reconstruction.

Facial transplantation (FT), rst performed in 2005, is indicated in patients living with functional and aesthetic decits unamenable to conventional reconstructive techniques. Mechanisms of injury for the 48 FTs performed to date have included burns, and ballistic injury, among others [1]. The extent of tissue transplanted varies and can include full or partial facial soft tissue, along with varying portions of the craniofacial skeleton. Currently, no widely accepted criteria exist, with recipient selection being largely patient and transplant team specic. Our FT patient cohort outcomes are displayed in Fig.28.1.