Recently the decision-making committee of the compulsory Swiss accident insurance scheme needed to make a basic decision as to whether to fund hand transplantation under that scheme or not. A Health Technology Assessment was commissioned to inform decision-making and gain experience with applicability of the method. The following were main findings from various domains. Compared with prosthesis fitting, the outcome of hand transplantation is satisfactory for function and sensibility. Complications due to immunosuppression are frequent, sometimes severe and potentially life-shortening. The direct medical costs over the entire life span calculated for a 35-year-old unilaterally amputated base case patient were CHF 528,600 (EUR 438,500) higher than for a prosthesis. There are challenging ethical, legal and organizational issues. The committee decided not to reimburse hand transplantation for ethical reasons. The Health Technology Assessment has been shown to be a useful tool for decision-making in the context of Swiss accident insurance.
CarrollD. A quantitative test of upper extremity function. J Chronic Dis. 1965, 18: 479–91.
5.
CavadasPCLandinLThioneA. The Spanish experience with hand, forearm, and arm transplantation. Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 443–53.
6.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking systematic reviews in health care. York, University of York, 2009.
7.
ChungKCOdaTSaddawi-KonefkaDShauverMJ. An economic analysis of hand transplantation in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010, 125: 589–98.
DattaDSelvarajahKDaveyN. Functional outcome of patients with proximal upper limb deficiency—acquired and congenital. Clin Rehabil. 2004, 18: 172–7.
10.
DavidsonJ. A comparison of upper limb amputees and patients with upper limb injuries using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Disabil Rehabil. 2004, 26: 917–23.
11.
DubernardJMOwenELefrancoisN. First human hand transplantation. Case report. Transpl Int. 2000, 13Suppl 1: S521–4.
12.
DubernardJMPetruzzoPLanzettaM. Functional results of the first human double-hand transplantation. Ann Surg. 2003, 238: 128–36.
13.
DudkiewiczIGabrielovRSeiv-NerIZeligGHeimM. Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees. Disabil Rehabil. 2004, 26: 60–3.
14.
EUnetHTA. The HTA Core Model ®. European Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, 2014. http://www.eunethta.eu/hta-core-model (accessed: 3 April 2014).
15.
GablMKropflA. [Subjective impairment after macroamputation of the upper extremity]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2008, 40: 31–4.
16.
GrahamBAdkinsPTsaiTMFirrellJBreidenbachWC. Major replantation versus revision amputation and prosthetic fitting in the upper extremity: a late functional outcomes study. J Hand Surg Am. 1998, 23: 783–91.
17.
HautzTEngelhardtTOWeissenbacherA. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the Innsbruck program. Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 423–31.
18.
HodgesAChesherSFerandaS. Hand transplantation: rehabilitation: case report. Microsurgery. 2000, 20: 389–92.
19.
INAHTA. International Network for Health Technology Assessment, 2014. http://www.inhta.org/Glossary/ (accessed: 3 April 2014).
20.
IRHCTT. International Registry on Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation. 2012. www.handregistry.com (accessed: 20 October 2012).
21.
JableckiJ. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the Polish program. Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 433–42.
22.
JonesJWGruberSABarkerJHBreidenbachWC. Successful hand transplantation. One-year follow-up. Louisville Hand Transplant Team. N Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 468–73.
23.
KaufmanCLBreidenbachW. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update from the Louisville hand transplant program. Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 417–21.
24.
LandinLBonastreJCasado-SanchezC. Outcomes with respect to disabilities of the upper limb after hand allograft transplantation: a systematic review. Transpl Int. 2012, 25: 424–32.
25.
LeithnerAGlehrMScheiplSWindhagerR. [Evaluation of macroamputations of the upper extremity in the management of primary malignant bone and soft-tissue tumours using the DASH score]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2008, 40: 19–22.
26.
MeyerVE. Upper extremity replantation – a review. European Surgery. 2003, 35: 167–73.
27.
NICE. Hand allotransplantation: guidance. 2014 edn. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2010, Vol. IPG 383.
28.
NinkovicMWeissenbacherAGablM. Functional outcome after hand and forearm transplantation: what can be achieved?Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 455–65.
29.
OstlieKFranklinRJSkjeldalOHSkrondalAMagnusP. Assessing physical function in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees by combining the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Questionnaire and clinical examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011, 92: 1636–45.
30.
PetruzzoPDubernardJM. World experience after more than a decade of clinical hand transplantation: update on the French program. Hand Clin. 2011, 27: 411–6.
31.
PetruzzoPLanzettaMDubernardJM. The International Registry on Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation. Transplantation. 2008, 86: 487–92.
32.
PetruzzoPLanzettaMDubernardJM. The International Registry on Hand and Composite Tissue Transplantation. Transplantation. 2010, 90: 1590–4.
33.
PinzurMSAngelatsJLightTRIzuierdoRPluthT. Functional outcome following traumatic upper limb amputation and prosthetic limb fitting. J Hand Surg Am. 1994, 19: 836–9.
