LAUSR

Importance: To identify ways to improve care to underserved international populations. Objective: To analyze the authors’ data in hopes of meeting further needs. Design: This is a retrospective review of medical missions using data from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) Face to Face) Database. Setting: International sites of AAFPRS approved surgical mission trips. Participants: One thousand six hundred forty-six patients who were seen by an AAFPRS mission trip between January 12, 2010 and April 27, 2017. Outcomes/Measures: Patient and mission data, procedure data, characteristics of cleft patients, patient follow-up data, repeat patient data, and factors affecting whether a patient was provided service were all evaluated. Results: Patients were seen over the course of 26 trips to 6 different countries. Patients (n, mean, median age) who underwent a primary cleft lip repair only (175, 2.5 years, 0.6 years) and those who underwent a primary cleft palate repair only (268, 6.4 years, 3.6 years) were significantly older than what is identified as the upper range of normal in surgical literature13,14 (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test Z = −4.3, P < 0.001 for lip and Z = −10.1, P < 0.001 for palate). Patients (n, median, mean rank) receiving a primary cleft palate repair were significantly younger in Peru (160, 3.0 years, 126) compared with patients in other countries (108, 5.0 years, 147) (Z = −2.1, P < 0.05). The odds of a patient returning unplanned were 2.8 (OR, 95% CI 1.52–4.98; P < 0.01) times higher if they were diagnosed with a cleft palate only and 0.91 (OR, 95% CI 0.90–0.93; P < 0.05) times lower if they were diagnosed with combined cleft lip with cleft palate at their first visit. Patients (median age, mean rank) who were provided a service (6.0 years, 724.70) were younger than patients who were not provided a service (8.0 years, 637.23) at their first visit (Mann–Whitney, U = 164,275; P < 0.001). Conclusion/Relevance: This data indicates that disparities exist among patients treated on mission trips compared with those in higher income countries. Furthermore, the authors’ data indicate that multiple mission trips to the same country within the same year decrease some of these disparities. Additionally, isolated cleft palate patients are most likely to return unplanned indicating need for standardized postoperative visits. The preferential care of younger patients with unrepaired clefts as compared with older patients and those with palatal fistulas indicates a need for additional resource allocation.