Smart surgical glasses for orofacial cleft surgery training in high- and low-income countries: A proof of concept.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 pandemic urged us to find alternatives for education through remote proctoring and international surgical collaborations among high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Smart surgical glasses are promising for remote surgical education and international surgical collaborations. AIMS: This study aimed to assess the usability of smart surgical glasses during cleft surgery and explore their potential in remote surgical education and collaboration. METHODS: Six plastic surgical cases were randomly selected and recorded using the RODS&CONES glasses in 4K (3840 × 2160p). A 23-point questionnaire was sent to one plastic surgeon, one plastic surgery resident, and eight doctors who were not trained to critically appraise the video and audio quality of the smart surgical glasses and their applicability for remote surgical education. RESULTS: The participants indicated that the smart glasses had several significant advantages over conventional on-site education, such as facilitating a better view of the surgical field and providing possibilities for remote interaction. The audio quality was considered excellent. The main limitations were image stabilization issues and loss of video connection due to weak wireless fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: All participants appreciated the use of smart glasses for remote education and considered them a promising tool for enhancing the quality of surgical education. The glasses can enable remote assistance and education of local surgical residents and may facilitate sustainable surgical collaborations among high-, middle-, and low-income countries.

Unraveling a Major Burden of Orofacial Clefts Analyses: Classification of Cleft Palate Fistulas by Cleft Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate how cleft surgeons classify palatal fistulas. We focused on three different anatomical locations (ie, hard palate, soft palate, junction hard/soft palate) to analyze agreement/disagreement at various anatomical locations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in an international webinar that focused on palatal fistula treatment were included. INTERVENTION: Participants were presented with a survey pre- and post-webinar. MAIN OUTCOMES: Frequency of used classification systems for classifying oronasal fistulas and the inter-rater reliability of the Pittsburgh classification system. RESULTS: A total of 141 participants completed the questionnaires prior to the webinar and 109 participants completed the survey after the webinar. In total, four classification systems were used (ie, Pittsburgh, Pakistan Comprehensive Fistula Classification [PCFC], anatomical and 'other'). The Pittsburgh classification was the most commonly used system in all cases. However, Pittsburgh inter-rater reliability was low (κ = 0.136 pre-webinar, and κ = 0.174 post-webinar). Surprisingly, a substantial shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar, indicating increased awareness of the usability of the Pittsburgh classification system. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a large heterogeneity with regards to the classification of cleft palate fistulas. Interestingly, a shift was observed from the anatomical to Pittsburgh classification after the webinar. However, the inter-rater reliability for using the Pittsburgh classification was low. Classifying palatal fistulas in a homogenous fashion could enhance comparison of primary palate repair and could improve treatment of palatal fistulas.

Stakeholders' Views on Information Needed in a Patient Decision Aid for Microtia Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To assess which information about microtia and the possible reconstructive options health care providers (HCPs), patients and parents believe should be included in a patient decision aid (PtDA). DESIGN: A mixed-methods study comprised of an online survey of HCPs and focus group discussions with patients and parents. PARTICIPANTS: Survey respondents were members of the International Society for Auricular Reconstruction (ISAR). Focus group participants were patients with microtia and their parents, recruited through the microtia outpatient clinic at Amsterdam UMC, and through a Dutch patient organization for cleft and craniofacial conditions. METHODS: An online, investigator-made survey was sent to ISAR members in December 2021. Semi-structured focus group discussions were held in February 2022. Quantitative results were summarized, and qualitative results were thematically grouped. RESULTS: Thirty-two HCPs responded to the survey (response rate 41%). Most respondents (n = 24) were plastic surgeons, who had a median of 15 years of experience (IQR: 7-23 years). Two focus groups were held with a total of five patients and two parents. HCPs, patients and parents generally agreed on the information needed in a PtDA, emphasizing the importance of realistic expectation management. Patients and parents also considered psychosocial and functional outcomes, patient experiences, as well as patients' involvement in decision-making important. CONCLUSIONS: A PtDA for microtia reconstruction should target all patients with microtia, and include information on at least technique-related information, expected esthetic results, possible adverse effects, psychosocial and functional outcomes and patient experiences. Preference eliciting questions should be developed for both pediatric patients and their parents.