Lotta Velin1, Adriana C Panayi2,3, Iris Lebbe4, Emmanuelle Koehl5, Gauthier Willemse5, Dominique Vervoort4,6. 1. Centre for Teaching & Research in Disaster Medicine and Traumatology (KMC), Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. 2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dear EditorWe read the comment from Dr Bandyopadhyay, questioning our findings that show only 16 global
surgery centres in Europe, with great interest[1]. We thank the author for providing us with an opportunity to expand on the
limitations of our analysis and acknowledge that more institutions, such as those presented by
the author, are involved in surgical care delivery in variable-resource contexts. Our analysis
focused exclusively on academic global surgery initiatives and educational programmes directly
associated with medical schools. Although non-governmental organizations such as KidsOR
(founded in Scotland) and the Global Surgery Foundation (located in Switzerland), and student
initiatives such as InciSioN chapters, were not captured by our analysis, they are central to
the European global surgery landscape. Similarly, although not hosting traditional
institution-based learning, subregional initiatives such as the Nordic Network for Global
Surgery and Anesthesia in the Nordic countries and the German Society for Global Surgery in
Germany facilitate research and educational collaborations between institutions and
individuals.We excluded non-academic initiatives for multiple reasons. First, many informal ad hoc
opportunities, such as student chapters or projects based on personal partnerships, may not be
described online, and were excluded to ensure consistency. Second, most hospitals have some
individuals working clinically abroad (e.g. annual ‘missions’) with some hospitals even having
long-term relationships established. These initiatives, however, are rarely established at the
university level, as reflected in our analysis. Third, trainees often have limited
opportunities to meaningfully participate in clinical initiatives abroad which are not based
on institutional collaborations. Many, albeit certainly not all, of these fly-in ‘missions’
are marked by power asymmetries contradicting the spirit of equity emphasized in the
definition of global surgery. Overall, our focus on academic initiatives sought to serve as a
proxy for visibility and accessibility for trainees to start to engage as future global
surgery leaders.