Comparative Study
. 2017 Sep;116(4):439-447.
doi: 10.1002/jso.24692. Epub 2017 Jun 7.
Affiliations
- PMID: 28591940
- DOI: 10.1002/jso.24692
Comparative Study
Cost analysis of postmastectomy reconstruction: A comparison of two staged implant reconstruction using tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix with abdominal-based perforator free flaps
Bao Ngoc N Tran et al. J Surg Oncol. 2017 Sep.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Two staged tissue expander-implant with acellular dermal matrix (TE/I + ADM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap are the most common implant and autologous methods of reconstruction in the U.S. Implant-based techniques are disproportionally more popular, partially due to its presumed cost effectiveness. We performed a comprehensive cost analysis to compare TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap.
Methods: A comparative cost analysis of TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap was performed. Medicare reimbursement costs for each procedure and their associated complications were calculated. Pooled probabilities of complications including cellulitis, seroma, skin necrosis, implant removal, flap loss, partial flap loss, and fat necrosis, were calculated using published studies from 2010 to 2016.
Results: Average actual cost for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $13 304.55 and $10 237.13, respectively. Incorporating pooled complication data from published literature resulted in an increase in cost to $13 963.46 for TE/I + ADM and $12 624.29 for DIEP flap. The expected costs for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $9700.35 and $8644.23, which are lower than the actual costs.
Conclusions: DIEP flap breast reconstruction incurs lower costs compared to TE/I + ADM. These costs are lower at baseline and when additional costs from pooled complications are incorporated.
Keywords: acellular dermal matrix; cost analysis; deep inferior epigastric perforator flap; implant-based reconstruction.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Similar articles
Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix.
de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. de Blacam C, et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Nov;69(5):516-20. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318217fb21. Ann Plast Surg. 2012. PMID: 21587037
The cost effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction.
Krishnan NM, Chatterjee A, Rosenkranz KM, Powell SG, Nigriny JF, Vidal DC. Krishnan NM, et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Apr;67(4):468-76. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.035. Epub 2014 Jan 23. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014. PMID: 24508194 Review.
Medium-term cost analysis of breast reconstructions in a single Dutch centre: a comparison of implants, implants preceded by tissue expansion, LD transpositions and DIEP flaps.
Damen TH, Wei W, Mureau MA, Tjong-Joe-Wai R, Hofer SO, Essink-Bot ML, Hovius SE, Polinder S. Damen TH, et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Aug;64(8):1043-53. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.12.028. Epub 2011 Feb 12. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011. PMID: 21317054
Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap versus implants for breast reconstruction.
Khajuria A, Smith OJ, Prokopenko M, Greenfield M, Mosahebi A. Khajuria A, et al. Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 22;6(1):232. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0628-y. Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29166926 Free PMC article.
Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix.
Bank J, Phillips NA, Park JE, Song DH. Bank J, et al. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013 Dec;37(6):1194-201. doi: 10.1007/s00266-013-0213-2. Epub 2013 Oct 3. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013. PMID: 24091489 Review.
Cited by
Protocol for a national cohort study to explore the long-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of implant-based and autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer: the brighter study.
Johnson L, Holcombe C, O'Donoghue JM, Jeevan R, Browne J, Fairbrother P, MacKenzie M, Gulliver-Clarke C, White P, Mohiuddin S, Hollingworth W, Potter S. Johnson L, et al. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 18;11(8):e054055. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054055. BMJ Open. 2021. PMID: 34408062 Free PMC article.
Comparing Plastic Surgeon Operative Time for DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: 2-stage More Efficient than 1-stage?
Issa CJ, Lu SM, Boudiab EM, DeSano J, Sachanandani NS, Powers JM, Chaiyasate K. Issa CJ, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Jun 7;9(6):e3608. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003608. eCollection 2021 Jun. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021. PMID: 34104615 Free PMC article.
Intraoperative Autoderm Decontamination for Use in Immediate Single-stage Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction.
Diaz-Abele J, Padalko A, Dalke K, Brichacek M, Buchel EW. Diaz-Abele J, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Jul 15;8(7):e2968. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002968. eCollection 2020 Jul. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020. PMID: 32802661 Free PMC article.
Economic Analysis of Noninvasive Tissue Oximetry for Postoperative Monitoring of Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Review.
Lindelauf AAMA, Vranken NPA, Rutjens VGH, Schols RM, Heijmans JH, Weerwind PW, van der Hulst RRWJ. Lindelauf AAMA, et al. Surg Innov. 2020 Oct;27(5):534-542. doi: 10.1177/1553350620942985. Epub 2020 Jul 23. Surg Innov. 2020. PMID: 32701027 Free PMC article. Review.
Use of Decision Analysis and Economic Evaluation in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Bouhadana G, Safran T, Al-Halabi B, Davison PG. Bouhadana G, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 27;8(4):e2786. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002786. eCollection 2020 Apr. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020. PMID: 32440446 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
- Ovid Technologies, Inc.
- Wiley
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information