Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. METHODS: Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. RESULTS: BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

The Costs of Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Episode-Based Bundled Payment Models.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors' objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models. METHODS: The cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs. RESULTS: Among 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Episode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.

Autologous Breast Reconstruction versus Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do Long-Term Costs and Health Care Use Compare?

BACKGROUND: The authors compared long-term health care use and cost in women undergoing immediate autologous breast reconstruction and implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: This study was conducted using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains deidentified retrospective administrative claims data, including medical claims and eligibility information from a large U.S. health insurance plan. Women who underwent autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction between January of 2004 and December of 2014 were included. The authors compared 2-year use rates and predicted costs of care. Comparisons were tested using the t test. RESULTS: Overall, 12,296 women with immediate breast reconstruction were identified; 4257 with autologous (35 percent) and 8039 with implant-based (65 percent) breast reconstruction. The proportion of autologous breast reconstruction decreased from 47.2 percent in 2004 to 32.7 percent in 2014. The mean predicted reconstruction cost of autologous reconstruction was higher than that of implant-based reconstruction in both unilateral and bilateral surgery. Similar results for mean predicted 2-year cost of care were seen in bilateral procedures. However, in unilateral procedures, the 2-year total costs were higher for implant-based than for autologous reconstruction. Two-year health care use rates were higher for implant-based reconstruction than for autologous reconstruction for both unilateral and bilateral procedures. Women undergoing unilateral implant-based reconstruction had higher rates of hospital admissions (30.3 versus 23.1 per 100; p < 0.01) and office visits (2445.1 versus 2283.6 per 100; p < 0.01) than those who underwent autologous reconstruction. Emergency room visit rates were similar between the two methods. Bilateral procedures yielded similar results. CONCLUSION: Although implant-based breast reconstruction is a less expensive index operation than autologous breast reconstruction, it was associated with higher health care use, resulting in similar total cost of care over 2 years.

Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality. RESULTS: Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Silicone versus Saline Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: The most common type of breast reconstruction is implant-based breast reconstruction. Implant-based reconstruction has been reported to impact quality-of-life outcomes. Therefore, the authors sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of saline versus silicone implants. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent breast reconstruction with saline or silicone implants at their institution. This included type of procedure, acellular dermal matrix use, complications, and number of revisions. Costs were estimated using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physician fee schedule and hospital costs. Effectiveness was measured using BREAST-Q-adjusted life-years, a measure of years of perfect breast health, based on BREAST-Q data collected before mastectomy and reconstruction and at 12 months after final reconstruction. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for silicone and saline reconstruction. RESULTS: The authors identified 134 women, among which 77 (57 percent) underwent silicone and 57 (43 percent) underwent saline breast reconstruction. The cost of saline reconstruction was $1288.23 less compared with silicone. BREAST-Q-adjusted life-years were 28.11 for saline and 23.57 for silicone, demonstrating higher cost-effectiveness for saline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for saline was -$283.48, or $283.48 less per year of perfect breast-related health postreconstruction than silicone. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results indicate that saline breast reconstruction may be more cost-effective compared with silicone at 12 months after final reconstruction. Silicone was both more expensive and less effective than saline. However, given the relatively small cost difference, surgeon and patient preference may be important in determining type of implant used.

Utility and Cost Effectiveness of Routine, Histologic Evaluation of the Mastectomy Scar in Two-Stage, Implant-Based Reconstruction during Expander-to-Implant Exchange.

BACKGROUND: Routine histologic analysis of the mastectomy scar is well studied in the delayed breast construction population; no data regarding its utility in the immediate, staged reconstruction cohort have been published. METHODS: A retrospective review of all of the senior author's (C.D.C.) patients who underwent immediate, staged reconstruction was performed. The mastectomy scar was analyzed routinely at the time of expander-to-implant exchange. Six hundred forty-seven breasts were identified. The mastectomy scar, time between expander and permanent implant, average patient age, and mastectomy indication were calculated. A cost analysis was completed. RESULTS: All scar pathologic results were negative for in-scar recurrence. The majority, 353 breasts, underwent mastectomy for carcinoma, 94 for germline mutations, 15 for high-risk lesions, six for high family risk, and 179 for contralateral symmetry/risk reduction. The average age at mastectomy/expander placement was 47.7 ± 10.3 years, and the average time between expander placement and implant exchange was 254 ± 152 days. The total histologic charge per breast was $602. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically silent in-scar recurrence is, at most, a rare occurrence. Routine histologic analysis of the mastectomy scar can be safely avoided in the immediate, staged reconstruction cohort. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: For larger cancers in moderate to large breast sized women, breast surgical cancer treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction (SSIR). Often in the case of LVOS, reduction mammaplasty designs are used in the oncoplastic reconstructions with a contralateral symmetry operation. The goal of this study was to investigate the cost-utility between LVOS versus SSIR to determine which approach is cost-effective in the treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed to determine baseline values and ranges. An average national Medicare payment rates using DRG and CPT codes were used for cost assessment. After constructing a decision tree, an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated comparing the difference for both surgical options in costs by the difference in clinical-effectiveness. To validate our results, we performed one-way sensitivity analyses in addition to a Monte-Carlo analysis. RESULTS: An ICUR of $546.81/QALY favoring LVOS was calculated based off of its clinical-effectiveness gain of 7.67 QALY at an additional cost of $4194. One-way sensitivity analyses underscored the degree by which LVOS was cost-effective. For example, LVOS became cost-ineffective when a successful LVOS cost more than $50,000. Similarly, probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation showed that even with varying multiple variables at once, results tended to favor our conclusion supporting the cost-effectiveness of LVOS. CONCLUSIONS: For the appropriate patients with moderate to large sized breasts with breast cancer, large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery is cost-effective compared to mastectomy with single staged implant reconstruction.

Trends in Physician Payments for Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic breast reconstruction rates have risen in the United States, whereas autologous techniques have stagnated. Meanwhile, single-institution data demonstrate that physician payments for prosthetic reconstruction are rising, while payments for autologous techniques are unchanged. This study aims to assess payment trends and variation for tissue expander and free flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: The Blue Health Intelligence database was queried from 2009 to 2013, identifying women with claims for breast reconstruction. Trends in the incidence of surgery and physician reimbursement were characterized by method and year using regression models. RESULTS: There were 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction, with a significant rise in tissue expander cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; p < 0.001) and an unchanged incidence of free flap cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.02; p = 0.222). Bilateral tissue expander cases reimbursed 1.32 times more than unilateral tissue expanders, whereas bilateral free flaps reimbursed 1.61 times more than unilateral variants. The total growth in adjusted tissue expander mean payments was 6.5 percent (from $2232 to $2378) compared with -1.8 percent (from $3858 to $3788) for free flaps. Linear modeling showed significant increases for tissue expander reimbursements only. Surgeon payments varied more for free flaps (the 25th to 75th percentile interquartile range was $2243 for free flaps versus $987 for tissue expanders). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of tissue expander cases and reimbursements rose over a period where the incidence of free flap cases and reimbursements plateaued. Reasons for stagnation in free flaps are unclear; however, the opportunity cost of performing this procedure may incentivize the alternative technique. Greater payment variation in autologous reconstruction suggests the opportunity for negotiation with payers.

Assessing value in breast reconstruction: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction is one of the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons and is achieved through various choices in both technology and method. Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly important in assessing differences in value between treatment options, which is relevant in a world of confined resources. A thorough evaluation of the cost-effectiveness literature can assist surgeons and health systems evaluate high-value care models. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was conducted. Two reviewers independently evaluated all publications up until August 17, 2017. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 1996 records were screened, from which 53 studies underwent full text review. All the 13 studies included for final analysis mention an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Five studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of technologies including acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in staged prosthetic reconstruction, ADM in direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, preoperative computed tomography angiography in autologous reconstruction, indocyanine green dye angiography in evaluating anastomotic patency, and abdominal mesh reinforcement in abdominal tissue transfer. The remaining eight studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different reconstruction methods. Cost-effective strategies included free vs. pedicled abdominal tissue transfer, DTI vs. staged prosthetic reconstruction, and fascia-sparing variants of free abdominal tissue transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates multiple cost-effective technologies and methods in accomplishing successful breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should be well informed of such economic models when engaging payers and policymakers in discussions regarding high-value breast reconstruction.

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.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy in the context of breast malignancy can have a profoundly negative impact on a woman's self-image, impairing personal, sexual and social relationships. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and implants are the two commonest reconstructive modalities that can potentially overcome this psychological trauma. The comparative data on clinical outcomes and costs of the two modalities is limited. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on DIEP versus implants to establish which is the superior technique for breast reconstruction, in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A comprehensive search will be undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and Science citation index databases (1994 up to August 2017) to identify studies relevant for the review. Primary human studies evaluating clinical outcomes and cost of DIEP and implant-based reconstruction in context of breast malignancy will be included. Primary outcomes will be patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome from patient-reported outcome measures (scores from validated tools, e.g. BREAST-Q tool), complications and cost-analysis. The secondary outcomes will be duration of surgery, number of surgical revisions, length of stay, availability of procedures and total number of clinic visits. DISCUSSION: This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis in available literature comparing the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of DIEP and implants for breast reconstruction. This review is expected to guide worldwide clinical practice for breast reconstruction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072557 .

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.

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.

Comparing Health Care Resource Use between Implant and Autologous Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In the debate on reconstruction of the irradiated breast, there is little information on associated health care resource use. Nationwide data were used to examine health care resource use associated with implant and autologous reconstruction. It was hypothesized that failure rates would contribute the most to higher average cumulative cost with either reconstruction method. METHODS: From the 2009 to 2013 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, irradiated breast cancer patients who underwent implant or autologous reconstruction were selected. In a 24-month follow-up period, the cumulative costs of health care services used were tallied and described. Regression models stratified by reconstruction method were then used to estimate the influence of failure on cumulative cost of reconstruction. RESULTS: There were 2964 study patients. Most (78 percent) underwent implant reconstruction. The unadjusted mean costs for implant and autologous reconstructions were $22,868 and $30,527, respectively. Thirty-two percent of implant reconstructions failed, compared with 5 percent of autologous cases. Twelve percent of the implant reconstructions had two or more failures and required subsequent autologous reconstruction. The cost of implant reconstruction failure requiring a flap was $47,214, and the cost for autologous failures was $48,344. In aggregate, failures constituted more than 20 percent of the cumulative costs of implant reconstruction compared with less than 5 percent for autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in 10 patients who had implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy to the breast eventually required a flap for failure. These findings make a case for autologous reconstruction being primarily considered in irradiated patients who have this option available.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Breast Reconstruction Options in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: A consensus is lacking on a uniform reconstructive algorithm for patients with locally advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Both delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques have inherent advantages and complications. The study hypothesis is that implants are more cost effective than autologous reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy because of immediate restoration of the breast mound. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis model using the payer perspective was created comparing delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques against the do-nothing option of mastectomy without reconstruction. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Effectiveness was determined using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. A breast quality-adjusted life-year value was considered 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both treatments compared with the do-nothing option. RESULTS: BREAST-Q scores were obtained from patients who underwent immediate prosthetic reconstruction (n = 196), delayed autologous reconstruction (n = 76), and mastectomy alone (n = 71). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for immediate prosthetic and delayed autologous reconstruction compared with mastectomy alone were $57,906 and $102,509, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both treatment options decreased with increasing life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy, immediate prosthetic-based breast reconstruction is a cost-effective approach. Despite high complication rates, implant use can be rationalized based on low cost and health-related quality-of-life benefit derived from early breast mound restoration. If greater life expectancy is anticipated, autologous transfer is cost effective as well and may be a superior option.

The Early Years of Practice: An Assessment of Operative Efficiency and Cost of Free Flap and Implant Breast Reconstruction at an Academic Institution.

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term costs, and financial implications of improvements in operative efficiency of free flap and implant-based breast reconstruction within an academic practice. Methods The billing records of 162 patients who underwent postmastectomy implant-based or free flap breast reconstruction by two newly hired microsurgeons at an academic institution during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fiscal years were reviewed. Actual data on professional revenue, relative value units (RVUs), and facility costs for the first stage of reconstruction as well as costs of postoperative complications were assessed. Results Free flaps consistently generated more revenue and RVUs than implants (p < 0.001). Rates of major complications and associated costs were greater for free flaps during the first 2 years of practice; however, by the 3rd year rates were similar between free flaps and implants (14.3 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.72). There was a 26% reduction in free flap operative time in 2013 as compared with 2011. Operative efficiency (hourly RVU) of first stage procedures increased each year for both modalities. At the completion of reconstruction, flaps and implants had comparable hourly reimbursement ($1,053 vs. $947, p = 0.72) and hourly RVU (22 vs. 29, p = 0.06). Conclusions Contrary to perceptions that free flap breast reconstructions are financially inefficient for the surgeon, we have found that these complex reconstructive procedures are profitable. Even in the early years of practice, hourly reimbursements from completed flap reconstructions are similar to reimbursements received from similar staged implant reconstructions.

A comparison of long-term cost and clinical outcomes between the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis and autologous deep inferior epigastric flap methods for breast reconstruction in a public hospital.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction involves the use of large amounts of hospital resources. This study provides comparative data on the clinical results and long-term economic costs of two methods of breast reconstruction in a public hospital. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the costs incurred by delayed unilateral breast reconstruction performed using either the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis (E-P) or autologous deep inferior epigastric flap (DIEP) method during 2005-2013 in 134 patients. The major evaluated variables included previous clinical records, history of radiotherapy, and number of surgical procedures. Total costs accounted for both direct intra- and extra-hospital costs derived from the initial reconstruction and those resulting from associated reoperations due to aesthetic retouches and/or complications. RESULTS: Patients undergoing E-P reconstruction required a higher number of surgery sessions to complete the reconstruction (3.07 vs. 2.32, p < 0.001) and showed higher rates of surgery-related complications (40.29% vs. 32.82%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two surgical methods in terms of total costs (€18857.77 DIEP vs. €20502.08 E-P; p = 0.89). In the E-P cohort, active smoking and history of radiotherapy were statistically significant risk factors of complications. In the DIEP group, only active smoking was significantly associated with complications. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the E-P method, breast reconstruction using the DIEP method is more cost-effective and involves fewer serious complications that result in reconstruction failure or undesirable aesthetic results. E-P reconstruction presents a higher number of complications that may cause surgical failure or poor outcomes.

Potential costs of breast augmentation mammaplasty.

BACKGROUND: Augmentation mammaplasty is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost of the initial procedure and its subsequent complications, as well as project the cost of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended surveillance imaging. METHODS: The potential costs to the individual patient and society were calculated. Local plastic surgeons provided billing data for the initial primary silicone augmentation and reoperative procedures. Complication rates used for the cost analysis were obtained from the Allergen Core study on silicone implants. Imaging surveillance costs were considered in the estimations. RESULTS: The average baseline initial cost of silicone augmentation mammaplasty was calculated at $6335. The average total cost of primary breast augmentation over the first decade for an individual patient, including complications requiring reoperation and other ancillary costs, was calculated at $8226. Each decade thereafter cost an additional $1891. Costs may exceed $15,000 over an averaged lifetime, and the recommended implant surveillance could cost an additional $33,750. DISCUSSION: The potential cost of a breast augmentation, which includes the costs of complications and imaging, is significantly higher than the initial cost of the procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis study.