Ten-Year Cleft Surgery in Nepal: Achievements and Lessons Learned for Better Cleft Care Abroad

Abstract

Background:Cleft lip and palate surgery abroad is devoid of global consensus regarding standards of therapy, follow-up, and outcome. Cleft surgery in Nepal during a 10-year sustained program provided the opportunity to inform on the need for such standards.Methods:Medical records were evaluated from the cleft clinic at Sushma Koirala Memorial Hospital, Sankhu, Kathmandu, Nepal, from 1997 to 2007. Four groups were identified for analysis: total cohort, total surgical cohort (TSC), primary program patients (PPP; patients had not been operated on before), and nonprimary program patients (non-PPP; patients operated on elsewhere before). Patient demographics, diagnostic, primary and secondary surgery (corrective surgery), and follow-up were evaluated.Results:One thousand forty-five patients were eligible for surgery. Three hundred twenty-three of 1,045 patients (30.9%) did not seek treatment, although scheduled for surgery. One thousand two hundred one procedures were performed in 722 patients [TSC; 845 PPP (70.4%); 356 non-PPP (29.64%)]. Corrective procedures were performed in 257 of 1,201 [3.5% (30 of 845 procedures in 509 patients) PPP vs 63.7% (227 of 356 procedures in 213 patients) non-PPP]. One hundred six lips were completely reoperated on (1 PPP vs 105 non-PPP), and 42 palates underwent a total revision (5 PPP vs 37 non-PPP). The surgical outcome of the TSC group in terms of complication rate was similar to the one in developed countries.Conclusions:The high rate of corrective surgery reveals the need for global regulatory mechanisms and the need for nongovernmental organizations to introduce strategies for delivering sustained cleft care until achieving full rehabilitation. The World Health Organization should establish standards for cleft care delivered in less developed countries.

Short-term volunteer health trips: aligning host community preferences and organizer practices

“…Volunteers often provide care for free, which seems laudable, but often makes it difficult for local health workers to make a living even after volunteers leave because STMMs create an expectation among community memebers of free care. Lack of follow-up after brief medical and surgical interventions raises the real possibility of patients experiencing complications and side effects with no possibility for care [ 3 , 11 , 12 ]. Yet another concern is that the monies spent on flying volunteers around the world could be spent much more effectively in other ways, such as training local health workers.…”