Zalaquett, Nader

ABSTRACTImportanceHighlighting the global disparities in otolaryngology training and, ultimately, service delivery, emphasizing the need for equitable access to training resources and programs.ObjectiveTo describe the relationship between the quality, content, and location of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery training and education and the resulting impact on the delivery of otolaryngology care globally.DesignAn online cross‐sectional survey to otolaryngologists, gathering information on their training and education experiences, and factors influencing their choice of training location and practice.SettingThe online survey was available in multiple languages, distributed via national and international professional otolaryngology societies, snowballing and social media.ParticipantsThe respondents were practicing otolaryngologists representing all seven World Health Organization regions.ExposuresWorld Bank income groups classification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOur expected outcome was that subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly readily available to respondents from high‐income countries, leading to more confidence in performing complex procedures post training.ResultsA total of 91 participants were included in the analysis, with 47 (52%) practicing in high‐income countries and 44 (48%) in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Sixty‐one participants (67%) were male. Subspecialty training and access to educational resources were significantly less available in low‐ and middle‐income countries, leading to lower confidence among low‐ and middle‐income countries physicians in performing complex procedures. High‐income country respondents reported better access to diverse training resources and felt more prepared for a broader range of procedures.Conclusion and RelevanceSignificant disparities exist in OHNS training resources and subspecialty training opportunities between high‐ and low‐middle‐income countries. There is a critical need to integrate complementary training and educational modalities into local systems. Addressing the shortage of educational resources and promoting open‐access initiatives in low‐middle‐income countries are essential steps toward enhancing surgical education and improving global otolaryngology healthcare outcomes.

ABSTRACT Objective Availability of surgical equipment and access to essential clinical services remains an important barrier to surgical care delivery, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). This study aims to characterize the relative availability of essential equipment for otolaryngology‐head and neck surgery (OHNS) care across World Bank income groups. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional survey on otolaryngologists' perceptions on the availability of surgical equipment and ancillary services in their respective practice settings per a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from never to always available. The study was disseminated online via professional societies, personal contacts, and social media. Eligible participants included otolaryngologists from 194 WHO‐recognized countries, which were grouped by World Bank income group classification and WHO region. Results The study involved 146 otolaryngologists, 69 (47%) from high‐income countries (HICs), and 77 (53%) from LMICs. LMIC respondents were predominantly from the African and South‐East Asian regions, which comprised 48% and 7.8% of all LMIC respondents, respectively. Results revealed significant differences in the availability of otologic, rhinologic, and endoscopic airway equipment between HICs and LMICs. Differences existed among commonly used equipment such as tympanomastoidectomy equipment and rigid bronchoscopy, to subspecialized equipment such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery equipment and cochlear implants ( p < 0.05 each). Conclusions The study highlighted key disparities in the availability of essential equipment for baseline OHNS care, especially for pediatric airway and otologic conditions. These results can be used to guide investment and advocacy efforts to improve specialty‐specific surgical infrastructure relative to the global burden of OHNS diseases in low‐resource settings. Level of Evidence 3

AbstractObjectiveThis scoping review aims to contribute a descriptive analysis of the craniomaxillofacial trauma (CMF trauma) literature in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) to identify knowledge gaps, direct future research, and inform policy.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Review, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar from January 1, 2012 to December 10, 2023.Review MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) guided reporting, and the PRISMA flowchart documented database searches. Specific, predefined search terms and inclusion criteria were used for screening, and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used for quality assessment. The search yielded 54 articles, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. Key findings were summarized and divided into 7 categories.ResultsThere were 10,420 patients (7739 [74.3%] male, 2681 [25.7%] female) with a male‐to‐female ratio of 2.9:1. The mean peak age of incidence of CMF trauma was 30.8 years, ranging from 20 to 40 years. Road traffic accidents were the leading cause (60.4%), followed by assault (27.2%) and falls (12.2%). The most common injuries were soft tissue injury (31.7%), isolated mandibular fracture (22.8%), and isolated middle‐third of mandible fracture (18.1%). The most common treatments were closed reduction and immobilization (29.5%), conservative management (27.6%), and open reduction and internal fixation (19.6%). Most patients (77.8%) experienced a treatment delay due to a lack of fixation materials (54.8%) or surgeon unavailability (35.7%).ConclusionCMF trauma remains a significant cause of global morbidity, yet there remains a lack of high‐quality, CMF trauma‐specific data in LMICs. Country‐specific investigations are required to enhance knowledge and inform novel interventions. Implementing policy change must be community‐specific and account for unique cultural barriers, attitudes, and behaviors to maximize patient care outcomes.