BACKGROUND: In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), domestic investments to strengthen surgical services compete with services delivered by international missions. While addressing the high burden of unmet surg...BACKGROUND: In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), domestic investments to strengthen surgical services compete with services delivered by international missions. While addressing the high burden of unmet surgical need is a priority, there remains limited evidence on the comparative economic value of different delivery options to guide investment decisions. METHODS: Four databases and grey literature were searched for publications in any language from January 2013 to January 2023. Eligible studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit of international missions and domestic initiatives used for scale up of surgical care. Average cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each intervention and then converted to 2022 international dollars (I$). Findings were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were identified (17 studies evaluated domestic surgical system strengthening programmes, 14 studies assessed international missions, and 1 study directly compared a domestic surgical development initiative against international missions). Financial protection schemes, investments in physical infrastructure, surgical residency training, and local missions were cost-effective, as were most of the international missions, compared with status quo or no intervention. However, when compared head-to-head, the unit costs per disability-adjusted life-year averted of domestic initiatives were significantly lower relative to the international missions-mean (standard deviation) I$27 051 (I$65 360) and median (interquartile range) I$498 (I$602) versus mean (standard deviation) I$515 500 (I$1 528 716) and median (interquartile range) I$5068 (I$31 618). The difference was statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank-sum test: z = 2.412; P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Investments in domestic surgical system strengthening efforts provide better value for money than international missions and should be prioritized over international missions.
The year 2015 was a landmark year for global surgical care due to the publication of the 2030 targets of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. The Lancet report catalysed the global surgery movement amidst warnings of...The year 2015 was a landmark year for global surgical care due to the publication of the 2030 targets of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. The Lancet report catalysed the global surgery movement amidst warnings of the movement's fragmentation, exclusivity, and leaning towards the Global North. Since then, there has been positive growth in academic global surgery programmes and centres, surgery coalitions, student advocacy, infrastructure, and task-sharing models, and a shift in the framing of global surgery from brief north-south mission trips to an academic discipline with burgeoning literature. Since 2016, four of the commission's six indicators have been integrated into the World Development Indicators. However, there has been a significant decline in the national reporting of these indicators (in some instances to 0% globally), making it difficult to objectively assess progress. The aim of this article is to discuss the progress and controversies surrounding the commission's benchmarks for specialist surgical workforce density, geographical access to surgical care, financial risk protection for surgical care, and surgical volume and reporting of perioperative mortality, as well as to discuss some unintended consequences since the commission, including the challenge of negative framing, the creation of a surgeon-focused movement, the expansion of a largely academic field with little focus on implementers, emphasis on high-level advocacy without a similar focus on grassroots advocacy, hyper-emphasis on surgical plans without appropriate focus on implementation capacity, relegation of community-based care and prevention as a component of global surgery, and the challenge of the use of 10-year-old data, 5 years to the finish line. Finally, broad recommendations for progress are suggested using a nine-pronged framework.
INTRODUCTION: Prioritizing resources is essential for low-income countries aiming to improve surgical systems effectively. Few validated tools exist to facilitate this. The authors aimed to address this through the novel...INTRODUCTION: Prioritizing resources is essential for low-income countries aiming to improve surgical systems effectively. Few validated tools exist to facilitate this. The authors aimed to address this through the novel application of an existing training needs analysis (TNA) tool to a surgical context in a low-income country. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed as a mixed-methods, online survey to capture quantitative and qualitative data based on the Hennessy-Hicks training needs analysis (HHTNA) Questionnaire. The survey was distributed by collaborating organizations in Somaliland. RESULTS: Responses were received from 41 anaesthesia providers (APs) and 69 surgical providers (SPs), giving a response rate of approximately 59% of APs, 33% of surgeons, and 21% of obstetricians in Somaliland. The HHTNA of APs highlighted that emergency front of neck access (cricothyroidotomy) was a 'high intervention priority' procedure among APs. Regional anaesthesia, medical management of co-morbidities, and anaesthesia in geriatric populations were also considered performance outliers and should also be the focus of further intervention. Importantly, mixed interventions were desired, indicating that training alone would be insufficient, and that improvements to the work situation also need to be addressed. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that conducting a pragmatic TNA of the surgical team in a low-resource setting, such as Somaliland, is both feasible and can generate useful data to guide training and professional development.
Global health that addresses the burden of surgical care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is a simple definition of 'global surgery'. In recent years, researchers and global health practitioners...Global health that addresses the burden of surgical care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is a simple definition of 'global surgery'. In recent years, researchers and global health practitioners, particularly those from LMICs, have drawn attention to the inequitable practices, reminiscent of colonial medicine and tropical medicine, that persist within global health. Herein, the concept of neocolonialism in global surgery is introduced and suggestions for how to approach global surgery in more equitable and inclusive ways are provided. Surgical care delivery through short-term surgical missions has faced challenges in providing high-quality surgical care with limited follow-up and sustainability. Similarly, skills gained in short-term training programmes may be misaligned with the disease burden of communities. In the context of surgical training, surgeons from colonized lands have historically travelled to high-income countries (HICs) to have their local experience validated through European or North American examinations. The master craftsman/trainer guild model remains in many parts of the world and is expensive and designed for the replacement of the workforce in HICs. It is also the rate-limiting factor for scaling up surgical education to address exponential population growth and the unmet need for surgery in LMICs. Global North domination of knowledge around national surgical plans (NSPs) and policy development has several negative consequences. The NSP development process needs to be bottom-up with wide stakeholder involvement for developing shorter-term, more focused plans to galvanize stakeholders.
BACKGROUND: The international community has, for many years, offered support and medical services at times of conflict, crisis, or disaster, but their ability to do so effectively has come under increasing scrutiny in re...BACKGROUND: The international community has, for many years, offered support and medical services at times of conflict, crisis, or disaster, but their ability to do so effectively has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. The aim of this study was to examine the perceptions of local surgeons to incoming medical teams and international non-governmental organizations (iNGOs) during times of conflict. Non-resident diaspora surgeons who returned during conflict were analysed as a subgroup. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using qualitative methods was performed. Study participants were in-country-based medically qualified personnel performing surgery during conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, who had worked in these settings before the onset or escalation of conflict. Participants were identified through a pre-interview questionnaire distributed via the Royal College of Surgeons of England and other targeted networks. A structured guide was used to conduct in-depth interviews with 21 surgeons from eight countries and a thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Local surgeons generally had positive working relationships with incoming medical teams, but not universally. Some experienced frustration with inexperienced incoming surgeons and others were limited in interaction due to the nature of the conflict. A need for coordination, timely intervention, and less 'playing the hero' was noted in relation to iNGOs. Diaspora surgeons often played a significant role in supporting local surgeons clinically and via equipment procurement and training. CONCLUSION: Incoming medical teams travelling to conflict areas should be experts in their field and work collaboratively with local surgeons. Increased communication and collaboration between iNGOs and local surgeons is necessary to reduce duplication of effort and improve services.
BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most performed surgical procedures, but, nevertheless, there is a high unmet need, with over 200 million people worldwide living with an inguinal hernia. The aims of this...BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most performed surgical procedures, but, nevertheless, there is a high unmet need, with over 200 million people worldwide living with an inguinal hernia. The aims of this study were to evaluate 5-year outcomes after anterior mesh inguinal hernia repair, to assess the safety of a training intervention, and to compare the outcomes of patients operated on by a medical doctor (MD) versus an associate clinician (AC). METHODS: Adult men with a primary inguinal hernia were included either as training patients or in the randomized trial, with surgical treatment performed by an MD or an AC. Patients were followed up mostly at hospital or at home; questionnaire information was collected and physical examinations were performed. Outcomes of training and trial patients were compared and outcomes of patients who underwent surgeries performed by MDs or ACs during the trial were compared. RESULTS: In total, 129 patients were included in the training group and 229 patients were included in the randomized trial group. At 5-year follow-up, 288 patients (80.4%) were alive, 40 patients (11.2%) had died, and 30 patients (8.4%) were lost to follow-up. The overall recurrence rate was 5.0% and the all-cause mortality rate was 11.2%. Mortality and recurrence were not significantly different between the training and trial patients or between the patients who underwent surgeries performed by MDs or ACs during the trial. CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes after primary elective inguinal mesh hernia repair indicate that hands-on short-course training can be implemented effectively and that task sharing is safe and effective.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) is increasingly used for oesophageal cancer surgery, yet its adoption may have outpaced structured evaluation. This systematic review assessed RAMIO's...BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted minimally invasive oesophagectomy (RAMIO) is increasingly used for oesophageal cancer surgery, yet its adoption may have outpaced structured evaluation. This systematic review assessed RAMIO's development through the IDEAL framework and synthesized evidence from RCTs and long-term studies. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library on 1 June 2025 for studies comparing RAMIO with open oesophagectomy or minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Non-comparative, non-English, protocol, and review articles were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, classifying studies according to IDEAL stages. Outcomes were presented in a narrative overview. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB-2 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for long-term studies. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352208). RESULTS: A total of 104 studies involving 133 107 patients published between 2002 and 2025 were included. Of these, 86 were IDEAL stage 2B, four stage 3 (RCTs), and 14 stage 4 (long-term follow up studies). Generally, RAMIO research followed the IDEAL pathway, although several stage 4 studies preceded stage 3 evaluations. None explicitly referenced the IDEAL framework. RCTs demonstrated some benefits of RAMIO, including fewer complications and faster recovery, whereas long-term outcomes remain uncertain. Studies on long-term outcomes varied in design and were often at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: RAMIO may offer perioperative benefits, but high-quality evidence is limited. Few RCTs exist, and long-term benefits are unclear. Although RAMIO development aligns broadly with IDEAL stages, explicit framework adherence is lacking. Future trials should adopt structured IDEAL-guided designs and standardised reporting.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative infections are well-known complications following cancer surgery and are associated with worse oncological outcomes in several cancer types. The influence of major systemic postoperative infecti...BACKGROUND: Postoperative infections are well-known complications following cancer surgery and are associated with worse oncological outcomes in several cancer types. The influence of major systemic postoperative infections on the risk of breast cancer recurrence remains unexplored. The primary aim of this study was to assess the risk of distant recurrence following major systemic infection. Secondary aims were to assess this risk after other major events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included patients who underwent breast cancer surgery in Sweden between 2008 and 2019. The study cohort was identified using BCBaSe 3.0, a database linking the Swedish National Breast Cancer Quality Register with other national population-based healthcare registers. The primary exposure was major systemic infection within 90 days of surgery, with a secondary analysis of other major events. The primary outcome was distant recurrence, whereas secondary outcomes included locoregional recurrence, overall survival, and breast cancer-specific survival. RESULTS: Among 82 102 patients included, 1.8% (n = 1461) experienced a major systemic infection, and 0.6% (n = 516) other major events within 90 days of surgery. In adjusted analyses, major systemic infection was associated with increased risk of distant recurrence (HR 1.23, 95% c.i. 1.07-1.41), overall death (HR 1.47, 1.32-1.64), breast cancer-specific death (HR 1.27, 1.06-1.51), but not with locoregional recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up of 4.8 years, major systemic postoperative infections were associated with an increased risk of distant recurrence, overall death, and breast cancer-specific death, highlighting the importance of timely and effective treatment of postoperative infections.
Strijbos BTM, Kraakman I, Hopstaken JS
… +44 more, van Dongen JC, Janssen QP, van Dam JL, Akkermans-Vogelaar JM, Besselink MG, Bonsing BA, Bos H, Bosscha KP, Buijsen J, Busch OR, van Dam RM, Eskens FALM, Festen S, de Groot JWB, Groothuis K, Haberkorn BCM, de Hingh IHJT, van der Holt B, Homs MYV, van Hooft JE, Karsten TM, Kerver ED, van der Kolk MB, van Laarhoven CJHM, Liem MSL, Luelmo SAC, Neelis KJ, Nuyttens J, Paardekooper GMRM, Patijn GA, van der Sangen MJC, van Santvoort HC, Streppel MM, Suker M, Versteijne E, Vissers PAJ, de Vos-Geelen J, Wilmink JW, Zwinderman AH, van Eijck CHJ, van Tienhoven G, Groot Koerkamp B, Stommel MWJ, Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group