Economic model to estimate cost of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation vs control therapies for hospitalised patients in the United States, Germany, and United Kingdom.

An economic model was developed to estimate the cost of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwelling of a topical wound solution vs control therapies. Economic model inputs were means derived from the results of a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 comparative studies of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation. Means across studies comprising complex acute and chronic wounds for negative pressure wound therapy-instillation vs control (negative pressure wound therapy without instillation, gauze dressings, or gentamicin polymethylmethacrylate beads) groups were 1.77 vs 2.69 operating room visits (P = .008) and 9.88 vs 21.80 therapy days (P = .02), respectively. These inputs plus hospital cost data were used to model costs for the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. For the United States, Germany, and United Kingdom, respectively, economic model estimates of total potential per patient savings were $33 338, €8467, and £5626 for negative pressure wound therapy-instillation group vs control, based on assumed number of OR visits during therapy, cost of therapy system, and length of therapy. Model results showed an overall potential cost-savings with negative pressure wound therapy-instillation vs control, based on fewer OR visits and shorter therapy duration as reported in the published systematic review and meta-analysis.

Economic Analysis Based on the Use of Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy after Postoperative Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer accounts for 30% of all new cancer diagnoses in women. Although more options are now available regarding breast reconstruction, the risk of complications (eg, infection, dehiscence, and expander exposure) is also prevalent and must be considered when choosing a reconstruction option because the cost for complications can be substantial. METHODS: A hypothetical cost model was applied to clinical outcomes of a previous retrospective study comparing the use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy (ciNPT) and standard of care (SOC) over breast incisions after immediate reconstruction. The adjusted complication cost for a mastectomy with reconstruction was a mean of $10,402 and was calculated using a database of inpatient, outpatient, and carrier claims. RESULTS: The previous retrospective study included data on 665 breasts (ciNPT = 331, SOC = 334) and 356 female patients (ciNPT = 177, SOC = 179) and reported on complication rates at the breast level: 8.5% (28/331) for the ciNPT breast group versus 15.9% (53/334) for the SOC group (P = 0.0092). In the ciNPT group, 24/177 patients (13.6%) had a complication, whereas in the SOC group, 38/179 patients (21.2%) had a complication. Based on the adjusted mean complication cost of $10,402, total complication cost for the ciNPT group was $250,000 versus $395,000 for the SOC group with a per-patient cost savings of $218.00 with ciNPT. CONCLUSION: The authors' preliminary findings show potential cost savings with the use of ciNPT over breast incisions and warrant further study regarding the cost-effectiveness of ciNPT compared with standard of care after immediate breast reconstruction.

Early assessment of post-surgical outcomes with pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: A literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pre-pectoral breast reconstruction is an emerging surgical approach. This study provides an early assessment of outcomes with the technique. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed through searches of PubMed® /MEDLINE® to identify studies on pre-pectoral reconstruction. Patient characteristics and outcomes were extracted from studies and pooled. Linear relationships between complication rates and patient characteristics with pre-pectoral reconstruction were analyzed. A meta-analysis compared complication rates between pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (406 women/654 breasts) were included. The most common complications with pre-pectoral reconstruction were flap necrosis (7.8%), seroma (6.7%), capsular contracture (5.8%), and explantation (4.6%). No hyperanimation was reported. Significant correlation between previous radiation and flap necrosis, post-operative chemotherapy and infection, hypertension and flap necrosis, diabetes and dehiscence, and smoking and explantation were found. A meta-analysis of four studies comparing pre-pectoral (135 women/219 breasts) and dual-plane (230/408) reconstruction found no significant difference for likelihood of infection (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.30), explantation (0.83; 0.29-2.38), necrosis (1.61; 0.77-3.36), seroma (1.88; 0.71-5.02), dehiscence (1.84; 0.68-4.95), or capsular contracture (0.14; 0.02-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates are comparable following pre-pectoral and dual-plane reconstruction, indicating the pre-pectoral technique may be a feasible option for appropriate patients.

A Comparison of Two Fat Grafting Methods on Operating Room Efficiency and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Centrifugation (Cf) is a common method of fat processing but may be time consuming, especially when processing large volumes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on fat grafting time, volume efficiency, reoperations, and complication rates of Cf vs an autologous fat processing system (Rv) that incorporates fat harvesting and processing in a single unit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent autologous fat grafting during reconstructive breast surgery with Rv or Cf. Endpoints measured were volume of fat harvested (lipoaspirate) and volume injected after processing, time to complete processing, reoperations, and complications. A budget impact model was used to estimate cost of Rv vs Cf. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent fat grafting with Rv, and 96 patients received Cf. Mean volumes of lipoaspirate (506.0 vs 126.1 mL) and fat injected (177.3 vs 79.2 mL) were significantly higher (P < .0001) in the Rv vs Cf group, respectively. Mean time to complete fat grafting was significantly shorter in the Rv vs Cf group (34.6 vs 90.1 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Proportions of patients with nodule and cyst formation and/or who received reoperations were significantly less in the Rv vs Cf group. Based on these outcomes and an assumed per minute operating room cost, an average per patient cost savings of $2,870.08 was estimated with Rv vs Cf. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Cf, the Rv fat processing system allowed for a larger volume of fat to be processed for injection and decreased operative time in these patients, potentially translating to cost savings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

Use of negative pressure wound therapy with automated, volumetric instillation for the treatment of extremity and trunk wounds: clinical outcomes and potential cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: A growing body of literature supports use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) with positive clinical outcomes and potential cost savings. A retrospective analysis was performed to compare clinical outcomes of wounds treated with NPWTi-d versus NPWT and to estimate cost-differences between treatments based on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Data were extracted from records of patients with extremity or trunk wounds treated with NPWT (n = 34) or NPWTi-d using saline or polyhexanide (n = 48). On the basis of outcomes data, a hypothetical economic model using cost assumptions was created to calculate cost savings for NPWTi-d (related to) number of debridements and length of therapy. Operating room debridement cost was $3393 according to Granick et al. Daily therapy cost for each modality was $194.80 (NPWTi-d) and $106.08 (NPWT) based on internal company information. RESULTS: RESULTS showed significant differences (P < 0.0001) between NPWTi-d and NPWT patients, respectively, for the following: mean operating room debridements (2.0 vs 4.4), mean hospital stay (8.1 vs 27.4 days), mean length of therapy (4.1 vs 20.9 days), and mean time to wound closure (4.1 vs 20.9 days). Hypothetical economic model showed potential average reduction of $8143 for operating room debridements between NPWTi-d ($6786) and NPWT ($14,929) patients. There was a $1418 difference in average therapy costs between groups ($799/NPWTi-d vs $2217/NPWT). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, NPWTi-d appeared to assist in wound cleansing and exudate removal, which may have allowed for earlier wound closure compared to NPWT. Hypothetical economic model findings illustrate potential cost-effectiveness of NPWTi-d compared to NPWT.

Evaluation of an ultra-lightweight, single-patient-use negative pressure wound therapy system over dermal regeneration template and skin grafts.

As the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) over skin grafts has increased, traditional methods of NPWT system reimbursement and application are increasingly being challenged. A simplified method of accessing and operating NPWT in the outpatient setting is needed, particularly in cases where immediate outpatient use of NPWT is optimal. We evaluated use of a new ultra-lightweight, off-the-shelf, disposable, single-patient-use NPWT system (SP-NPWT; V.A.C.Via™ Therapy, KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX) over dermal regeneration template (DRT) and/or skin grafts. SP-NPWT was initiated over a DRT and/or skin graft in 33 patients with 41 graft procedures. Endpoints were recorded and compared to a historical control group of 25 patients with 28 grafts bolstered with traditional rental NPWT (V.A.C.® Therapy, KCI USA, Inc.). Average length of inpatient hospital stay was 0·0 days for the SP-NPWT group and 6·0 days for the control group (P < 0·0001). The average duration of SP-NPWT post-DRT or skin graft was 5·6 days for the SP-NPWT group and 7·0 days for the control (P < 0·0001). Preliminary data suggest that, compared to traditional NPWT, off-the-shelf SP-NPWT may provide a quicker, seamless transition to home, resulting in decreased hospital stay and potential cost savings.

Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation: a pilot study describing a new method for treating infected wounds.

This data review reports the results of 15 patients who were treated with Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC) negative pressure therapy system in addition to the timed, intermittent delivery of an instilled topical solution for management of their complex, infected wounds. Prospective data for 15 patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)-instillation was recorded and analysed. Primary endpoints were compared to a retrospective control group of 15 patients treated with our institution's standard moist wound-care therapy. Culture-specific systemic antibiotics were prescribed as per specific patient need in both groups. All data were checked for normality of distribution and equality of variance and appropriate parametric and non parametric analyses were conducted. Compared with the standard moist wound-care therapy control group, patients in the NPWT-instillation group required fewer days of treatment (36.5 +/- 13.1 versus 9.9 +/- 4.3 days, P < 0.001), cleared of clinical infection earlier (25.9 +/- 6.6 versus 6.0 +/- 1.5 days, P < 0.001), had wounds close earlier (29.6 +/- 6.5 versus 13.2 +/- 6.8 days, P < 0.001) and had fewer in-hospital stay days (39.2 +/- 12.1 versus 14.7 +/- 9.2 days, P < 0.001). In this pilot study, NPWT instillation showed a significant decrease in the mean time to bioburden reduction, wound closure and hospital discharge compared with traditional wet-to-moist wound care. Outcomes from this study analysis suggest that the use of NPWT instillation may reduce cost and decrease inpatient care requirements for these complex, infected wounds.

Assessment of long-term nipple projection: a comparison of three techniques.

Nipple-areola reconstruction represents the final stage of breast reconstruction, whereby a reconstructed breast mound is transformed into a breast facsimile that more closely resembles the original breast. Although numerous nipple reconstruction techniques are available, all have been plagued by eventual loss of long-term projection. In this report, the authors present a comparative assessment of nipple and areola projection after reconstruction using either a bell flap, a modified star flap, or a skate flap and full-thickness skin graft for areola reconstruction. The specific technique for nipple-areola reconstruction following breast reconstruction was selected on the basis of the projection of the contralateral nipple and whether or not the opposite areola showed projection. Patients with 5 mm or less of opposite nipple projection were treated with either the bell flap or the modified star flap. In patients where the areola complex exhibited significant projection, a bell flap was chosen over the modified star flap. In those patients with greater than 5-mm nipple projection, reconstruction with a skate flap and full-thickness skin graft was performed. Maintenance of nipple projection in each of these groups was then carefully assessed over a 1-year period of follow-up using caliper measurements of nipple and areola projection obtained at 3-month intervals. The best long-term nipple projection was obtained and maintained by the skate and star techniques. The major decrease in projection of the reconstructed nipple occurred during the first 3 months. After 6 months, the projection was stable. The loss of both nipple and areola projection when using the bell flap was so remarkable that the authors would discourage the use of this procedure in virtually all patients.