Introduction of Microsurgery in Vietnam by a Charitable Organization: A 15-Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microsurgical procedures, although equipment- and labor-intensive, allow efficient treatment of selected soft-tissue, bone, and peripheral nerve defects. The precise surgical skills required and the high equipment and institutional costs have been deterrents to initiating programs in developing countries. The authors report their 15-year international effort in facilitating the development of microsurgical techniques in Vietnam. METHODS: The authors reviewed their educational, logistical, and operative experience from 11 Operation Smile International missions to Vietnam and the microsurgical procedures performed independently by Vietnamese surgeons at the Central Military Hospital 108 in Hanoi. RESULTS: Over 15 years, Operation Smile International missions to Vietnam performed 108 free tissue transfer operations with 15 peripheral nerve transfer procedures and 143 nonmicrosurgical reconstructive operations. Visiting surgeons with specialized expertise taught facial reanimation, flap prefabrication, and perforator flaps. During this same period, Vietnamese surgeons became facile with microsurgical techniques and independently performed a wide array of these procedures in the institutions visited. Vietnamese surgeons have organized microsurgery divisions within some hospital departments and now teach microsurgical techniques. Repeated missions allowed for patient follow-up, staged procedures, educational exchange, and quality control. Several Vietnamese surgeons have traveled abroad to obtain additional training and have set up training programs in other areas of Vietnam. CONCLUSIONS: Charitable organizations can help surgeons in developing countries master complex microsurgical techniques through short-term medical missions, donation of equipment and supplies, and the encouragement of institutional support. A continuing education program, including local conferences, microsurgical laboratory training facilities, and study abroad, can aid this introduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".