Return of the Flap; The Empire State Mandate: A Multi-decade Multi-institutional Analysis of the 2010 New York State Legislature's Impact on Postmastectomy Immediate Flap-Based Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction plays an integral role in patient care because of its psychosocial benefits. New York State (NYS) passed the 2010 Breast Cancer Provider Discussion Law with the aim of increasing patient awareness of reconstructive options through mandating plastic surgery referral at the time of cancer diagnosis. Short-term analysis of the years surrounding implementation suggests the law increased access to reconstruction, especially for certain minority groups. However, given the continued presence of disparities in access to autologous reconstruction, we aimed to investigate the longitudinal effects of the bill on access to autologous reconstruction along various sociodemographic cohorts. METHODS: Retrospective review identified demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical data for patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction at Weill Cornell Medicine and Columbia University Irving Medical Center from 2002 to 2019. Primary outcome was receiving implant or autologous-based reconstruction. Subgroup analysis was based on sociodemographic factors. Multivariate logistic regression identified predictors of autologous reconstruction. Interrupted time series modeling analyzed differences in reconstructive trends for subgroups before and after the 2011 implementation of the NYS law. RESULTS: We included 3178 patients; 2418 (76.1%) and 760 (23.9%) patients underwent implant and autologous-based reconstruction, respectively. Multivariate analysis indicated that race, Hispanic status, and income were not predictors of autologous reconstruction. Interrupted time series showed that with each year leading up to 2011 implementation, patients were 19% less likely to receive autologous-based reconstruction. Following implementation, there was a 34% increase in the odds of receiving autologous-based reconstruction with each passing year. Following implementation, Asian American and Pacific Islander patients experienced a 55% greater increase in the rate of flap reconstruction than White patients. Following implementation, the highest-income quartile experienced a 26% greater increase in the rate of autologous-based reconstruction compared with the lowest-income quartile. After implementation, Hispanic patients experienced a 30% greater decrease in the rate of autologous-based reconstruction compared with non-Hispanic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate the long-term efficacy of the NYS Breast Cancer Provider Discussion Law in increasing access to autologous-based reconstruction, especially for certain minority groups. These findings underscore the importance of this bill and encourage its adoption into other states.

Does the Type of Reconstruction Matter? A Propensity Score Analysis of Immediate Postmastectomy Implant and Flap Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trials have compared implant and flap reconstruction. Recently, worse longitudinal outcomes have been suggested for flap reconstruction. The authors compared long-term oncologic outcomes of postmastectomy breast reconstruction using propensity score matching. METHODS: A retrospective study of postmastectomy reconstruction was achieved using the Weill Cornell Breast Cancer Registry between 1998 and 2019. Patients were matched using propensity scores based on demographic, clinical, and surgical characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimates, Cox-regression models, and restricted mean survival times (RMST) were used to evaluate patient outcomes. RESULTS: Before matching, 1395 implant and 586 flap patients were analyzed. No difference in overall survival and recurrence were observed. Multivariable models showed decreased survival for Medicare/Medicaid [hazard ratio (HR), 3.09; 95% CI, 1.63 to 5.87; P < 0.001], pathologic stage II (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.12 to 7.90; P = 0.028), stage III (HR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.54 to 15.5; P = 0.007), 11 to 20 lymph nodes positive (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.31 to 10.2; P = 0.013), more than 20 lymph nodes positive (HR, 6.41; 95% CI, 1.49 to 27.6; P = 0.013). RMST at 10 years after flap reconstruction showed 2 months of decreased survival time compared with implants (9.56 versus 9.74 years; 95% CI, -0.339 to -0.024; P = 0.024). After matching, 563 implant and 563 flap patients were compared. Reconstruction was not associated with overall survival and recurrence. RMST between implant and flap reconstruction showed no difference in each 5-year interval over 20 years. CONCLUSION: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction was not associated with a difference in long-term oncologic outcomes over a 20-year period. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Osseointegrated Prostheses for Lower Limb Amputees in the US Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Patients with transfemoral and transtibial amputations generally rely on socket-suspended (SS) prostheses for ambulation. The use of these aids can be complicated by poor fit, leading to tissue damage, pain at the socket-limb interface, and inability to ambulate. Osseointegrated implants (OIs) directly anchor a prosthesis to the patient's residual limb, eliminating these issues. However, they require customized components and additional surgeries. The purpose of this study was to conduct the first cost-benefit analysis of OI prostheses compared to SS prostheses for lower limb amputees in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who received unilateral lower limb OI prostheses at our institution. Costs were calculated in a bottom-up approach using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Utilities and SS prosthesis costs were derived from previous studies. A Monte Carlo model was used to project costs and lifetime quality-adjusted life years for OI and SS prostheses, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of OI compared SS prostheses was determined. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (12 female) were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 17 months postimplantation. The average cost of OI surgery was $54,463. Twenty percent of patients required preimplantation soft tissue revision surgery ($49,191). Complication rates per year and average costs were as follows: soft tissue infection (29%, $435), bone/implant infection (11%, $11,721), neuroma development (14%, $14,659), and mechanical failure (17%, $46,513). The ICER was $44,660. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve demonstrated that OI was favored over SS in 78% of cases at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER was most sensitive to the mechanical failure rate, mechanical failure cost, and prior SS prosthesis costs. CONCLUSIONS: The model shows that OI prostheses provide a higher quality of life at affordable costs when compared to poorly tolerated SS prostheses in patients with lower limb amputations in the United States. The cost-effectiveness is largely determined by the patient's previous SS prosthesis costs and is limited by the frequency and costs of OI mechanical failure. More research must be done to understand the long-term benefits and risks of OI prostheses.

The Price of Aesthetics After Nipple-Sparring Mastectomy: A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Skin Banking With Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap.

BACKGROUND: Skin necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) breast reconstruction impacts cosmesis and patient satisfaction. Skin grafting might mitigate these sequelae, but oftentimes creates a color and texture mismatch with native breast skin. In contrast, abdominal skin on the DIEP flap is an excellent match and can be banked. The purposes of this study are to review our experience with skin banking of DIEP flaps and determine the cost-benefit of skin banking compared with other reconstructive options. METHODS: This was a retrospective review study conducted from 2011 to 2014 to examine patients undergoing staged DIEP reconstruction immediately after NSM. Medicare reimbursement costs using Current Procedural Terminology codes, and provider and facilities fees for conventional reconstructions options versus skin banking were obtained with subsequent cost-minimization and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who developed mastectomy skin necrosis was 12.1%, and that of those who had a positive retroareolar biopsy corresponding to an average surface area of 58.3 cm was 3.0%. Average per patient cost of skin banking was $1224, $844 more than split-thickness skin graft (STSG) without Integra, $420 more than STSG with Integra, and $839.01 more than full-thickness skin graft. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that skin banking was less than managing mastectomy skin loss with STSG and Integra when the incidence of necrosis >10 cm exceeded 25.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Skin banking maximizes aesthetic outcomes after skin loss from either positive margins or skin flap necrosis. Use of this technique should occur especially in select patients at increased risk of mastectomy skin flap/nipple-areola complex (NAC) necrosis and/or suspicion for occult NAC carcinoma. Furthermore, among reconstructive plastic surgeons whose rate of mastectomy flap/NAC necrosis >10 cm exceeds 25.3%, sensitive analysis favors undergoing a staged reconstruction after NSM.