Discussion
Several systematic reviews about short-term medical missions are available.7 9 10 12–15 This is the first systematic review that specifically assesses the quality of available data on short-term reconstructive surgical missions.
Although all the studies included in our review reported a positive impact of surgical missions, the level of evidence remains low. It seems that follow-up of treated patients is a challenge. Although a majority of studies provide data on complication rates, the varying quality of this outcome measure makes it difficult to draw any conclusions. The results showed that reported complication rates were considerably higher when the quality and length of follow-up increased. This suggests that without data on quality of follow-up, there is a high risk of reporting bias due to under-reporting of complications. This also means that without comprehensive information on follow-up, the safety of missions is likely to be overestimated.
Furthermore, studies used different control groups to benchmark their respective findings with regard to complication rates. Three of cleft care studies included compared complications between mission patients and patients who underwent similar procedures in a HIC. Results showed substantially higher complication rates in mission patients.34 49 60 One study showed that fistula risk was 15.6 times that for a US cohort.34 Maine et al
49 state that complication rates were 20 times higher in the mission cohort compared with a US cohort, independently of whether the surgery was performed by Ecuadorian or American surgeons. It should be mentioned that comparisons of complication rates between HICs and LMICs cannot be made without taking into consideration that HICs have more resources at their disposal to limit complications. Therefore, we would suggest developing benchmark complication rates of LMICs, which can be used to assess the outcomes of short-term missions.
Some authors argue that longer-term specialty surgical hospitals may be provide more effective care than short-term missions.9 12 39 Specialty hospitals provide continuous care all year round in a LMIC. The cleft care centre of Operation Smile in India,39 or Smile Train’s model are examples of this approach.69–78
Both organisations report lower complication rates than those reported in short-term missions. The centre of Operation Smile reports a short-term complication rate of 4.0% (cleft lip repair) and 15.8% (cleft palate repair), which is lower than the rates of their counterpart short-term missions.39 Smile Train studies report lower rates, between 0.88% and 3%.70 71 73 78 However, they note that there might be a risk of under-reporting or selection bias due to a dependence of Smile Train surgeons on payment-per-patient (risking fewer referrals when higher complication rates are reported) and a limited capacity of surgeons to treat complex cases.70 71 73 78 Furthermore, with only one Smile Train study reporting on follow-up lengths,73 these complication rates should be interpreted with caution. To be able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches of providing surgical care in a LMIC, there is a need for more high-quality studies.12 39 Apart from registrations of complications, such studies should assess long-term outcome using validated outcome measures and PROMs. Specialty hospitals, which provide services all year round, could provide good conditions for longer-term outcome research.
Several studies in this review consistently report on follow-up, showing that substantial efforts are being made to improve the data output of missions.16 34 35 49–51 61 63 Ten studies reported significant follow-up lengths of more than 6 months and high numbers of patients returning for follow-up were shown.16 34 35 47 49 58 60–62 66 The majority of these missions were engaged in long-term partnerships. This included training of local healthcare personnel, which was likely to improve the feasibility of organising follow-up. Several strategies were implemented to ensure the quality of follow-up. Some missions deployed medical students to assess palate fistulas34 or sent a speech pathologist in-country to review outcomes.61 Others trained local surgeons on follow-up and revision surgery.54 The relatively high number of complications seen in noma missions could be partly explained by a stringent follow-up, done by an independent researcher who consistently reported on follow-up. All the studies mentioned above provide examples of how to ensure patient safety during and after missions.50 79
Although some studies reported on health gains, with several studies reporting positive functional outcomes,16 47 61 63 66 the methods and evidence are heterogeneous and results are too limited to draw conclusions. The role of PROMs are effective in reconstructive surgery to assess the quality and outcomes of healthcare.80 81 Only few of the studies included reported successfully on outcomes using PROMs61 63 66 and none assessed the quality of care experienced by patients. Patient experience of outcomes and quality is important.82 Future studies should include PROMS on surgical outcomes and quality of care. Only a few studies report on the sustainable characteristics of missions. Data on this topic are usually qualitative and highly variable. It is noteworthy that reporting on sustainability and higher quality of patient follow-up often go hand in hand. This suggests that more sustainable missions may be better able to follow their patients for a longer period. However, as empirical evidence on sustainability is still non-existent, there is an urgent need for further studies.12
Limitations
This systematic review has several limitations. Literature on short-term reconstructive missions is scarce and of limited quality, limiting the strength of this review.25 As the majority of studies are cleft studies, the conclusions and recommendations of this review may not be fully applicable to other types of reconstructive surgical missions.
The studies included represent just a small proportion of the many reconstructive surgical missions conducted worldwide. This may introduce a potential bias. It is likely that the small proportion likely does not fully represent the actual effect of all reconstructive surgical missions. In our view, this emphasises the need to incorporate standard monitoring and evaluations into missions.
Furthermore, this review addresses only short-term missions and does not attempt to make a direct comparison with long-term surgical platforms such as specialty hospitals. It is often argued that specialty hospitals are safer and have a more positive effect on local healthcare systems.12 76–78 83 84 Comparative studies of short-term missions and specialty hospitals can identify strengths and weaknesses of each approach. However, a definitive comparison between missions and specialty hospitals seems to be premature at present given the lack of comparative studies.12 39
Concerns regarding the use of DALY metrics are applicable to the studies included in this review. It is argued that surgical conditions are underestimated in the global burden of disease studies.1 Attempts to estimate the surgical burden across all disease conditions have been challenging.85 86 In a recent study, it was argued that the current DALY approach is inadequate to quantify the burden of paediatric surgical conditions.87
Recommendations
There are opportunities for NGOs to develop short-term missions towards more sustainable partnerships. In the past, missions have been a ‘vertical’ approach to healthcare development.4 Such missions have limitations, for example in building local capacity of surgical services. The results of this study indicate that longer-term follow-up is frequently lacking, with complications being potentially missed. To address these shortcomings, the ‘diagonal development’ approach has been proposed.4 It combines the short-term vertical inputs of missions with longer-term horizontal benefits, with the ultimate aim of improving access to, and surgical capacity of, the local healthcare system. Such goals may be achieved through long-term development of surgical infrastructure, continued training of the local surgical workforce or building an academic culture.4
One example of such a diagonal approach is to aim for standardised tracking of longer-term outcomes of missions in strong collaboration with local partners. This might yield several advantages. Besides empowering local researchers and building an academic culture, outcomes can be reported back to patients and healthcare authorities. This will enhance the accountability of NGOs8 9 and allow for evaluations of the quality of care provided.
Another example of long-term investments in the local surgical capacity is strengthening of the training activities of surgical NGOs. Such activities should be integrated into existing national or regional training activities. The training should be adapted to local settings, needs-driven and should focus on bilateral knowledge exchange.4