Cost comparison of immediate one-stage and tissue-expander breast reconstructions after mastectomy in commercially insured patients.

OBJECTIVE: Growing acceptance of nipple-sparing mastectomy and rising rates of prophylactic mastectomy due to genetic findings make immediate one-stage implant breast reconstruction an attractive option for many American women facing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. We compared medical services utilization and cost of immediate one-stage reconstruction with that of the more common tissue-expander (TE) breast reconstruction. DESIGN: Retrospective administrative claims database analysis. METHODS: We obtained commercial insurance claims on patients in the U.S. who had undergone one-stage or TE post-mastectomy implant breast reconstructions in 2008, and we compared 18-month results in terms of the frequency and cost of return visits for additional procedures and/or for the treatment of complications. Return visits were categorized as planned, planned with revision, or unplanned. RESULTS: Among 1,316 immediate implant breast reconstructions, 95 (7%) were one-stage procedures and 1,221 (93%) were TE reconstructions. The data showed a modest, nonsignificant trend toward fewer return visits after one-stage reconstruction versus TE reconstruction (191 vs. 242 visits per 100 patients, respectively; relative risk [RR]: 0.95). Patients with TE reconstructions returned more often for planned returns and planned returns with revisions. Patients with one-stage reconstructions returned more often for unplanned events. The total costs over 18 months were $34,839 and $39,062 for one-stage and TE reconstructions, respectively, for a difference of -$4,223 (P = 0.38). The initial reconstruction, including the mastectomy, accounted for 64% of the 18-month costs with one-stage reconstructions and for 54% of the 18-month costs for TE reconstructions. CONCLUSION: Costs and utilization trended lower over 18 months for one-stage versus TE reconstructions following post-mastectomy breast reconstructions but did not achieve statistical significance.

Banking a hemi-abdominal DIEP flap: a pilot report of indications, technique, and utility.

We present a pilot report of "banking" the contralateral hemi-abdominal deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap under the abdominal closure in patients undergoing unilateral autologous breast reconstruction when a hemi-abdominal flap suffices. Four patients undergoing unilateral autologous breast reconstruction with a hemi-abdominal DIEP or superficial inferior epigastric artery flap had their contralateral hemi-abdominal flap left in position, or "banked," under their abdominal closure to be used in case of failure. This novel method may be of assistance when a free microvascular hemi-abdominal flap is felt to be threatened or suspect. It provides a life-boat for the younger and experienced surgeon alike, and most importantly, for the breast cancer survivor. Economic analysis of the technique reveals that the contralateral hemi-abdominal flap should be banked more often than intuition alone would suggest.

Nipple-sparing mastectomy: critical assessment of 51 procedures and implications for selection criteria.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have shown that occult nipple-areolar complex (NAC) involvement in breast cancer is low, occurring in 6-10% of women undergoing skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM). The cosmetic result and high patient satisfaction of nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has prompted further evaluation of the oncologic safety of this procedure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 36 self-selected patients who underwent 51 NSM procedures between 2002 and 2007. Criterion for patient selection was no clinical evidence of nipple-areolar tumor involvement. All patients had the base of the NAC evaluated for occult tumor by permanent histologic section assessment. We also evaluated tumor size, location, axillary node status, recurrence rate, and cosmetic result. RESULTS: Malignant NAC involvement was found in 2 of 34 NSM (5.9%) completed for cancer which prompted subsequent removal of the NAC. Of the 51 NSM, 17 were for prophylaxis, 10 for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 24 for invasive cancer. The average tumor size was 2.8 cm for invasive cancer and 2.5 cm for DCIS. Nine patients had positive axillary nodes. Overall, 94% of the tumors were located peripherally in the breast. After mean follow-up of 18 months, only two patients (5.9%) had local recurrence. CONCLUSION: Using careful patient selection and careful pathological evaluation of the subareolar breast tissue at surgery, NSM can be an oncologically safe procedure in patients where this is important to their quality of life. A prospective study based on focused selection criteria and long-term follow-up is currently in progress.

Devascularizing complications of free fibula harvest: peronea arteria magna.

The authors present a case report of devascularizing complications following free fibula harvest. A retrospective review of 93 consecutively imaged limbs demonstrated a peronea arteria magna (PAM) prevalence of 5.3 percent in an urban population, which was used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis for preoperative vascular imaging of the donor limb using magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and traditional angiography (TA). Donor-site complications of fibula harvest range from 15 to 30 percent, but are rarely limb-threatening. Limb loss is a dreaded complication of congenital PAM, which can be present with a normal vascular exam. Some microsurgery groups advocate using no preoperative imaging of the donor limb; they rely on intraoperative assessment of the vascular anatomy. An aborted harvest due to aberrant anatomy leads to both direct and indirect added costs. The authors believe that MRA imaging of the donor limb, being minimally invasive, is cost-effective and indicated for free fibula transfers. For equivocal results, conversion to more invasive and costly TA may be necessary.