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.

Cost analysis of enhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown in multiple surgical specialties to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS) after surgery. ERAS in breast reconstruction has been found to decrease hospital LOS and inpatient opioid use. ERAS protocols can facilitate a patient's recovery and can potentially increase the quality of care while decreasing costs. METHODS: A standardized ERAS pathway was developed through multidisciplinary collaboration. It addressed all phases of surgical care for patients undergoing free-flap breast reconstruction utilizing an abdominal donor site. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical variables associated with hospitalization costs for patients who underwent free-flap breast reconstruction with the ERAS pathway were compared with those of historical controls, termed traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS). All patients included in the study underwent surgery between September 2010 and September 2014. Predicted costs of the study groups were compared using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were analyzed: 82 in the ERAS cohort and 118 in the TRAS cohort. Clinical variables that were identified to potentially affect costs were found to have a statistically significant difference between groups and included unilateral versus bilateral procedures (p = 0.04) and the need for postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.03). The cost regression analysis on the two cohorts was adjusted for these significant variables. Adjusted mean costs of patients with ERAS were found to be $4,576 lesser than those of the TRAS control group ($38,688 versus $43,264). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS pathway was associated with significantly decreased costs when compared to historical controls. There has been a healthcare focus toward prudent resource allocation, which dictates the need for plastic surgeons to recognize economic evaluation of clinical practice. The ERAS pathway can increase healthcare accountability by improving quality of care while simultaneously decreasing the costs associated with autologous breast reconstruction.

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction Increases Healthcare Utilization and Cost.

BACKGROUND: The rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with unilateral breast cancer continue to rise, especially in women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: We utilized administrative claims data from a large US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs) to identify women age 18-64 years who underwent IBR between January 2004 and December 2013. We compared 2-year unadjusted utilization rates and total costs of care between unilateral mastectomy (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Comparisons were tested using t-test and differences in cost were estimated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Overall, 11,235 women undergoing mastectomy with IBR were identified; 7319 with implant reconstruction [1923 UM (26%) and 5396 BM (74%)] and 3916 with autologous reconstruction [1687 UM (43%) and 2229 BM (57%)]. The overall rate of office visits (2386 vs. 2391 per 100 women, p = 0.42) and hospital readmission rate (29.1 per 100 women vs. 27.4, p = 0.06) were similar between BM + IBR and UM + IBR. Women undergoing BM + IBR had a higher emergency room (ER) visit rate (34.1 per 100 women vs. 29.8, p < 0.0001). The total 2-year cost of care was higher for BM + IBR than UM + IBR for implant reconstruction ($106,711 vs. $97,218, p < 0.0001) and for autologous reconstruction ($114,725 vs. $87,874, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BM + IBR (autologous or implant) was associated with increased ER visits and higher total cost of care over 2 years compared with UM + IBR. Patients considering CPM should be counseled on the additional risks and costs associated with BM + IBR.

Recent Canadian plastic surgery graduates: are they prepared for the real world?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation between plastic surgery education received through residency in Canadian programs and perceived preparedness for independent clinical practice among recently graduated plastic surgeons. METHODS: All practicing plastic surgeons having graduated from a Canadian program between 1996 and 2006 were surveyed. An itemized Web-based questionnaire was designed and distributed by e-mail with the assistance of all program directors. RESULTS: Eighty (52 percent) of the 155 recent graduates from Canadian plastic surgery programs with valid contact information responded to the survey. The majority of respondents were satisfied with most aspects of their training. Only 22 percent of respondents had done part of their training in a foreign center, but all of them agreed that it was beneficial to their training. Clinical research was encouraged in 92 percent of the respondents' programs, but dedicated time was only allocated in 29 percent of these. At the beginning of their practice, the majority of respondents felt comfortable or very comfortable in all subspecialties with the exception of pediatric plastic surgery and ancillary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results describe the tendencies in type and duration of the training that Canadian graduates had over the last 10 years. The majority of respondents were satisfied with most aspects of their residency programs and felt comfortable practicing different subspecialties early in their careers. Expectations during residency and the resources made available to meet these expectations are also revealed. This study will help improve residency programs by identifying existing gaps in the preparedness of surgeons.