Left-handedness in otolaryngology, who is right?

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to ascertain the prevalence of left-handedness (LH) among otolaryngology—head and neck surgery (ORLHN) practitioners, investigate dexterity's impact on LH trainees, and identify common patterns in their training to improve the training experience.

Methods

A web-based survey was distributed anonymously via email to members of the Saudi Otorhinolaryngology Society. The survey targeted ORLHN attending consultants, board-certified registrars, and current residents. It consisted of three sections: the first focused on the experience of attending consultants in training LH individuals, the second investigated common maneuvers employed by rhinologists, and the third explored the experiences and impacts reported by LH trainees.

Results

The study included 174 participants, and found a 13.2% LH prevalence among them. Rhinologists showed disparities, with 50% advising trainees to stand on the left side of the bed and use their left hand for the scope, whereas the other half asked otherwise. Additionally, 94.4% of the participants had not encountered any courses specifically tailored for LH trainees. Among LH trainees, 57% and 41% reported difficulties in learning and performing side-specific procedures such as functional endoscopic sinus surgery and endoscopic septoplasty, respectively, often attempting to switch to their nondominant hand, and feeling disadvantaged due to their laterality.

Conclusions

Left-handedness presents challenges for both LH trainees and their trainers in surgical specialties, particularly in ORLHN, in which specific positioning and instruments are crucial to gain access to the desired surgical field. Despite these challenges, there is insufficient support for LH individuals. We recommend encouraging LH trainees to openly disclose and discuss their left-handedness, provide them with mentors, establish standardized operating room setups and techniques, supply appropriate instruments, and demonstrate flexibility in accommodating their needs.

Level of evidence

Level 5.