Early post-operative outcome of pre-pectoral implant-based immediate total breast reconstruction with Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl™) mesh - low cost solution for a low-middle income country.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of breast cancer in Pakistan has been rising with approximately one third of these patients requiring mastectomy. Among breast reconstruction treatment options, the use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) for pre-pectoral breast implant surgery has proven effective with improved cosmetic outcome. However, due to high cost it cannot be regularly implemented in a developing country like Pakistan. An alternative to ADM, Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl™, Ethicon) mesh has been introduced in pre-pectoral breast reconstructive surgery which has shown to be almost 10 times lower in cost. We set out to determine the frequency of early postoperative complications when using Polyglactin 910 mesh for pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction surgery. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, chart review was conducted, and a total 28 women were included in the study. Thirty-two pre-pectoral implant-based mastectomies with Polyglactin 910 mesh were performed. Early post-operative outcomes (within 12 months of procedure) including duration of antibiotic use, post-operative infection, implant displacement, flap necrosis, seroma formation, wound dehiscence, hematoma formation, capsular contracture and reconstruction failure, were recorded. RESULTS: Only 4 (12.5%) women experienced early post-operative morbidity. One patient developed a wound dehiscence, which eventually led to reconstruction failure and removal of the implant. Another patient had seroma formation and flap necrosis. None of the patients developed postoperative implant displacement, hematoma formation or capsular contracture in the early post-operative period. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that early post-operative outcomes with Polyglactin 910 mesh in breast reconstructive surgery are few, thus making it a cost effective, reliable, and safe treatment option, especially in developing countries like Pakistan.

Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction.

SUMMARY: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

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 Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients over the past 7 years who had implant reconstruction with synthetic absorbable mesh at the Massachusetts General Hospital was performed. Data were collected on demographic and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (376 mastectomies) were treated with direct-to-implant subpectoral reconstruction with absorbable mesh from 2011 to 2017. The infection rate was 2.1 percent. The rate of capsular contracture was 4.8 percent. Patients who had radiation therapy either preoperatively or postoperatively had a higher rate of complications, including capsular contracture. Cost savings for using mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix surpassed $1.2 million. CONCLUSION: Synthetic absorbable mesh is a safe alternative to acellular dermal matrix in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provides stable results along with significant cost savings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

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.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-sparing Direct-to-implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study Including Cost Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Refined mastectomy techniques, the advent of new technologies and materials such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM), cohesive gel silicone implants, and intraoperative tissue perfusion analysis, have fueled a resurgence in prepectoral breast reconstruction. This article aims to compare an immediate direct-to-implant prepectoral ADM-sparing approach with the traditional subpectoral 2-stage immediate reconstruction. A cost analysis within a Canadian-run single-payer system is also presented. METHODS: A retrospective 2-group comparative chart review study was performed (June 2015-January 2017) to identify all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using an ADM-sparing technique. The comparison group consisted of patients having undergone traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with ADM. All countable variables were included in the cost analysis, which was performed in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (116 reconstructed breasts) were included. Both the prepectoral and subpectoral groups were comparable in size, demographics including age, diabetic and smoking status, and receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiotherapy. Patients having undergone direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction benefited from fewer follow-up visits (3.8 vs 5.4, respectively) and from less complications (24.7% vs 35.6%, respectively) including animation deformity. In addition, direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction costs 25% less than the 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction when all associated costs were considered. CONCLUSION: Prepectoral implant placement avoids many of the disadvantages of the traditional 2 stage subpectoral reconstruction, including pectoralis muscle dissection, animation deformity, and multiple surgeries. As the first comparative cost analysis study on the subject, our ADM-sparing direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction method costs 25% less than the traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with a comparable complication profile.

Improving surgical efficiency of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, during a mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction, the surgical oncologist completes their operative procedure prior to the reconstructive surgeon entering the room. In this scenario, two separate instruments kits and tables are utilized. In our institution, we created a combined instrument kit for use by both surgical teams. We compared set-up and operative times for each process and the subsequent savings associated with this novel approach. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction were divided into two groups-those who underwent the procedure with separate oncology and reconstructive kits and those who underwent the procedure with combined instrumentation. Set-up time, procedure time, and clinical outcome endpoints were compared. Costs associated with each process were estimated. RESULTS: Surgical set-up time was lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 25.1 ± 9.6 min vs. 35.7 ± 10.4 min (p < 0.01) and mean for bilateral cases, 33.1 ± 10.3 min vs. 43.5 ± 9.9 min (p = 0.31)]. Procedure time was significantly lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 156.2 ± 31.7 min vs. 172.1 ± 33.0 min (p < 0.05) and mean for bilateral cases, 207.3 ± 39.3 min vs. 228. 8 ± 42.7 min (p = 0.03)]. Post-operative outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at 6 months post-surgery (p = 0.72). Due to a decrease in operating room utilization and costs associated with instrumentation, we estimated $134,396 to $206,621 with unilateral cases and a $289,167 to $465,967 in yearly savings with bilateral cases by using the combined process. CONCLUSION: Mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction utilizing combined instrumentation, with surgeons working simultaneously, led to decreased operating room utilization and costs without impacting clinical outcomes. Level of evidence II.