Comparison of Two Models of Surgical Care for Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate in Resource-challenged Settings
The Peruvian health system is limited in providing specialized care for patients with clefts because there are an insufficient number of hospitals and few specially trained doctors in rural areas of the country. The most common model of care in these areas is the surgical mission wherein experienced cleft surgeons perform surgeries and teach local doctors. The purpose of this research was to identify the differences in outcome between the surgical mission trip and the referral center model of care provided by the same team.
A retrospective analysis (2002–2012) was performed on data from surgical outcomes provided by the Outreach Surgical Center Lima that utilized both models of care (surgical mission and referral center). A total of 935 procedures were performed in 680 patients with clefts who were treated by the Outreach Surgical Center Program Lima since 2002. Patients in both groups were identified from our records (medical records and screening-day registries). All patients underwent a physical examination, had photographs taken, and any unfavorable results and complications were documented. Comparison of categorical variables (including outcomes) between care models was performed using Pearson’s χ 2 test or Fisher’s exact test when appropriate. In all cases a two-tailed test was performed and the p value for rejecting the null hypothesis (no difference or no association) was set at 0.05.
We found significant differences between the two models of care with respect to unilateral cleft lip and cleft palate dehiscence (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively), palate postoperative hemorrhage (p < 0.01), and palatal fistula (p < 0.01) outcomes.
Differences in observed surgical outcomes between the two models might be attributed to the surgeon’s performance and/or the patient’s age, and these factors are also considered with respect to the model of care. Limitations in long-term medical evaluation at each site should be identified and strategies to improve surgical outcomes must be developed to ensure that patients served by surgical missions obtain the same results achieved at a referral center.
Level of Evidence
KeywordsWound Dehiscence Mission Model Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Palatal Fistula Surgical Mission
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
- 1.Sacsaquispe Contreras S, Ortiz L (2004) Prevalencia de labio y/o paladar fisurado y factores de riesgo. Rev Estomatol Herediana 14(1–2):54–58Google Scholar
- 2.Rossell-Perry P (2009) Tratamiento de la fisura labiopalatina. Ed San Marcos, LimaGoogle Scholar
- 6.World Health Organization (2002) Global strategies to reduce the burden of craniofacial anomalies: report of WHO meetings on international collaborative research on craniofacial anomalies. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 9.Rossell-Perry P (2006) Nueva clasificación de severidad de fisuras labiopalatinas del programa Outreach Surgical Center Lima Perú. Acta Medica Peruana 23(2):59–66Google Scholar
- 13.Rossell-Perry P (2009) Outreach Surgical Center Program Lima: A 15 years’ experience in Peru. In: 11th International Congress on Cleft Lip and Palate, Fortaleza, Brazil, September 2009Google Scholar
- 14.van Aalst JA, Wilson L, Donkor P, Rai SM, Rossell-Perry P, Al Sheikh H (2010) Volunteer international treatment programs from a host nation perspective. In: 67th Meeting of the American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association, Fort Worth, TX, USA, March 2010Google Scholar
- 15.Rossell-Perry P, Palacios-Martinez J, Bermudez L (2009) Panel for the Volunteers in Plastic Surgery forum: “Providing High Quality and Safe Plastic Surgical Care in Developing Countries.” In: Annual Meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgery, Seattle, WA, USA, October 2009Google Scholar
- 17.Hochstein H, Hochstein HJ (1986) Spaltträger in der Belletristik. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichts Chir 10:405–409Google Scholar
- 18.Horch HH (1990) Fortschritte und Schwerpunkte bei der komplexen Behandlung von Lippen-Kiefer-Gaumenspalten. Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir 35:36–43Google Scholar
- 21.Koshy J, Ellsworth W, Sharabi S, Hatef D, Hollier L, Stal S (2010) Bilateral cleft lip revisions: the abbe flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(1):222–227Google Scholar
- 23.Instituto Nacional Estadística Perú. Indicadores nutricionales en Perú 2012. http://www.inei.gob.pe/biblioineipub/bancopub//Est/Lib0930/Libro.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2012
- 31.Maine RG, Hoffman WY, Palacios-Martinez JH, Corlew S, Gregory GA (2012) Comparison of fistula rates after palatoplasty for international and local surgeons on surgical missions in Ecuador with rates at a craniofacial center in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(2):319e–326ePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Yuan N, Dorafshar AH, Follmar KE et al (2012) Effects of cleft width and veau type on rates of palatal fistula and velopharyngeal insufficiency after cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(5 Suppl 1):23 (abstract)Google Scholar
- 36.Machuca M, Meji DV, Prospen J, Granda E (2006) Situación de salud, Ecuador—2006. Organización Panamericana de la Salud en Ecuador, November 2006Google Scholar
- 38.Mars M, Sell D, Habel A (eds) (2008) Management of Cleft Lip and Palate in the Developing World. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
- 39.Bearn D, Mildinhall S, Murphy T, Murray JJ, Sell D, Shaw W, Williams A, Sandy JR (2001) Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) study. Part 4: outcome comparisons, training, and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 38:38–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar