RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Vioptix is a near-infrared spectroscopy tissue oximetry technology that allows for noninvasive monitoring of flap perfusion. Despite the reported benefits of Vioptix, the cost-effectiveness of this flap monitoring technology has not been compared to clinical examination alone. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model, from the patient perspective, was constructed with two treatment arms: clinical examination versus clinical examination combined with Vioptix for flap monitoring after autologous, free flap breast reconstruction. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were identified from the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Gamma distributions were created for cost variables, and beta distributions were created for probability variables. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. All analyses were performed using TreeAge Pro (Williamstown, Mass.). RESULTS: Mean cost of autologous free tissue transfer breast reconstruction with clinical examination-based flap monitoring was found to be $37,561 with an effectiveness of 0.79, whereas the mean cost of clinical examination with Vioptix for flap monitoring was $39,361 with effectiveness of 0.82. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $60,507 for clinical examination combined with Vioptix for flap monitoring. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that clinical examination with Vioptix became cost-effective when the cost of Vioptix was less than $1487. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that clinical examination was cost-effective in 86.5 percent of cases. CONCLUSION: Although clinical examination combined with Vioptix is minimally more effective for flap monitoring after autologous, free flap breast reconstruction, clinical examination alone is the more cost-effective flap monitoring option.