ABSTRACT
Patients with atypical facial clefts are rare, and there is a paucity of literature outlining the surgical approach to managing these patients. The anatomical subunit approach to the surgical correction of the cleft lip has revolutionized cleft care. Here, we outline our approach and operative technique to treating Tessier clefts 3 and 4 using a novel technique based on the anatomical subunit approach. Methods: All cases of Tessier facial clefts 3 and 4 between 2019 and 2021 from the senior author's practice were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, procedure details, and complications are reported. The senior author's technique is described in detail. Results: Five patients underwent treatment by the senior author during the study period. One patient had bilateral Tessier 4 clefts, one patient had bilateral Tessier 3 clefts, two patients had a unilateral Tessier 4 cleft, and one patient had a unilateral Tessier 3 cleft. Two of the patients had their clefts treated as secondary procedures. The surgical complication profile was a lost nasal stent in one patient. Treatment principles of the senior author's technique are presented. Conclusions: The anatomical subunit approach to managing atypical facial clefts provides a structured approach to a complex problem for the cleft and craniofacial surgeon. The technique of repair presented here can assist surgeons attempting to treat patients with Tessier 3 and 4 clefts.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: 81 million people face impoverishment from surgical costs every year. The majority of this impoverishment is attributable to the non-medical costs of care-for transportation, for food and for lodging. Of these, transportation is the largest, but because it is not viewed as an actual medical cost, it is frequently unaddressed. This paper examines the effect on surgical utilisation of paying for transportation. METHODS: A hierarchical logistic regression was performed on 2692 patients presenting for surgical care to a non-governmental organisation operating in the Republic of the Congo, Guinea and Madagascar. Controlling for distance from the hospital, age, gender, the need for air travel and time between appointments, the effect of payment for transportation on the surgical no-show rate was evaluated. RESULTS: After adjustment for observed confounders, paying for transportation drops the surgical no-show rate by 45% (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77; p<0.001). Age, delay between appointments and the number of hours travelled for surgery also predict surgical no-show. For 28% of no-show patients, the cost of transportation from their homes to a nearby predetermined pick-up point remained a barrier, even when transportation from the pick-up point to the hospital was free. CONCLUSION: Transportation costs are a significant barrier to surgical care in low-resource settings, and paying for it halves the no-show rate. This finding highlights that decreasing demand-side barriers to surgical care cannot be limited only to the removal of user fees.
