Maxillofacial Surgery in Ukraine During a War: Challenges and Perspectives-A National Survey.

Introduction: The invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops on February 24, 2022, and the beginning of the full-scale war had huge humanitarian consequences. The major challenges facing the Ukrainian health care system included the disruption of medical infrastructure and logistics, the termination of the supply of expendable materials, significant migration, and a dramatic increase in high-velocity blast and gunshot injuries among combatants and civilians.The aim of the present study was to analyze the challenges and solutions in patient care faced by the Ukrainian system of maxillofacial surgery during the war in different regions of the country.

Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed and implemented as an online survey to collect national data concerning maxillofacial surgeons' experiences and professional activities. The study was initiated and supported by Bogomolets National Medical University (Kyiv, Ukraine), the Ukrainian representative of AO CMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen Craniomaxillofacial Surgery) and the University of Helsinki (Finland).The questionnaire was developed by specialists in maxillofacial surgery and sociologists and contained 65 close-ended questions. Surgeons who had not worked in this specialty in inpatient departments of hospitals since at least the beginning of the full-scale war were excluded from the study. We received and analyzed 97 responses that met the abovementioned criteria. The geography of respondents covered all the regions and the main cities of Ukraine, expect for the occupied territories.

Results: After a year of warfare, the percentage of surgeons who treated patients with blast and gunshot injuries increased from 43.4% to 86.6%. This percentage was higher in military hospitals and in regions located in the vicinity of the front line. We found that, during the war, 78.6% of respondents performed osteosynthesis in cases of high-velocity multifragmented facial bone fractures (in such cases, 58.3% of them strictly followed AO CMF recommendations, while 41.7% performed the fixation based on available hardware, existing technical possibilities and their own preferences). We found that 70.2% of respondents had the opportunity to apply Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacture technology and patient-specific implants for the treatment of gunshot injuries, 38.1% reported that their hospitals were able to perform microsurgical reconstructions for facial defects, 79.4% of respondents reported that their departments received humanitarian aid and support from volunteer organizations (either Ukrainian or international), which significantly facilitated the treatment process.

Conclusions: According to this nationwide survey of Ukrainian maxillofacial surgeons during a year of the full-scale war, 86.6% of respondents were involved in the treatment of gunshot and ballistic injuries in civilians and combatants. The main problems reported by the respondents were (1) a lack of experience and knowledge related to the treatment of severe wounds, especially by secondary reconstruction, and (2) a deficit of resources (equipment, materials, and medications) under conditions of disrupted logistics and changes in the numbers and nosological distribution of patients. There were the opportunity to transfer the patients to European clinics (29.9%), online consultations (45.4%), collaboration with foreign surgeons who come to Ukraine asvolunteers (32%).