Splitting the Difference: Using Synthetic and Biologic Mesh to Decrease Cost in Prepectoral Immediate Implant Breast Reconstruction.

SUMMARY: Prepectoral breast reconstruction has minimized morbidity and dynamic deformities associated with submuscular implant-based breast reconstruction. However, reliance on implant coverage with acellular dermal matrix in immediate implant reconstruction remains limited by high material costs. The authors describe a technique in which anterior implant coverage in prepectoral reconstruction is split into acellular dermal matrix inferolaterally and synthetic, absorbable mesh superiorly. Use of acellular dermal matrix inferiorly provides coverage and reinforces the inframammary fold, whereas the absorbable mesh is trimmed and sutured to the acellular dermal matrix at the appropriate tension to support the implant and relieve pressure on mastectomy flaps. A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive prepectoral one-stage breast reconstructions using this technique at a single institution. Patient demographics, mastectomy and reconstruction characteristics, reconstructive outcomes, and cost of support materials were queried and analyzed. Eleven patients (21 breasts) underwent prepectoral immediate implant reconstruction with Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage. Average mastectomy weight was 775.8 g. Smooth, round cohesive implants were used in all cases and average implant size was 514.5 ml. Overall complication rates were low and included one minor infection (4.8 percent) and one case of minor mastectomy flap and partial nipple necrosis each (4.8 percent). Calculated cost savings of Vicryl and acellular dermal matrix anterior coverage was up to $3415 in unilateral and $6830 in bilateral cases. Prepectoral breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix inferiorly and Vicryl mesh superiorly is a safe technique that decreases material costs associated with support materials and allows the surgeon to precisely control the implant pocket and position. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Cost-utility analysis of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. METHODS: Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. RESULTS: BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

The Use of Absorbable Mesh in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A 7-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is most frequently performed using implants or expanders. Adjunctive materials such as acellular dermal matrix and synthetic meshes are used to support the implant or expander. A paucity of large studies exist on the use of synthetic mesh for breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients over the past 7 years who had implant reconstruction with synthetic absorbable mesh at the Massachusetts General Hospital was performed. Data were collected on demographic and surgical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients (376 mastectomies) were treated with direct-to-implant subpectoral reconstruction with absorbable mesh from 2011 to 2017. The infection rate was 2.1 percent. The rate of capsular contracture was 4.8 percent. Patients who had radiation therapy either preoperatively or postoperatively had a higher rate of complications, including capsular contracture. Cost savings for using mesh instead of acellular dermal matrix surpassed $1.2 million. CONCLUSION: Synthetic absorbable mesh is a safe alternative to acellular dermal matrix in prosthetic breast reconstruction and provides stable results along with significant cost savings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

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.

Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality. RESULTS: Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Acellular Dermal Matrix-sparing Direct-to-implant Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparative Study Including Cost Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Refined mastectomy techniques, the advent of new technologies and materials such as acellular dermal matrix (ADM), cohesive gel silicone implants, and intraoperative tissue perfusion analysis, have fueled a resurgence in prepectoral breast reconstruction. This article aims to compare an immediate direct-to-implant prepectoral ADM-sparing approach with the traditional subpectoral 2-stage immediate reconstruction. A cost analysis within a Canadian-run single-payer system is also presented. METHODS: A retrospective 2-group comparative chart review study was performed (June 2015-January 2017) to identify all patients who underwent prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using an ADM-sparing technique. The comparison group consisted of patients having undergone traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with ADM. All countable variables were included in the cost analysis, which was performed in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (116 reconstructed breasts) were included. Both the prepectoral and subpectoral groups were comparable in size, demographics including age, diabetic and smoking status, and receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postmastectomy radiotherapy. Patients having undergone direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction benefited from fewer follow-up visits (3.8 vs 5.4, respectively) and from less complications (24.7% vs 35.6%, respectively) including animation deformity. In addition, direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction costs 25% less than the 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction when all associated costs were considered. CONCLUSION: Prepectoral implant placement avoids many of the disadvantages of the traditional 2 stage subpectoral reconstruction, including pectoralis muscle dissection, animation deformity, and multiple surgeries. As the first comparative cost analysis study on the subject, our ADM-sparing direct-to-implant prepectoral reconstruction method costs 25% less than the traditional 2-stage subpectoral reconstruction with a comparable complication profile.

Improving surgical efficiency of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

PURPOSE: Traditionally, during a mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction, the surgical oncologist completes their operative procedure prior to the reconstructive surgeon entering the room. In this scenario, two separate instruments kits and tables are utilized. In our institution, we created a combined instrument kit for use by both surgical teams. We compared set-up and operative times for each process and the subsequent savings associated with this novel approach. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction were divided into two groups-those who underwent the procedure with separate oncology and reconstructive kits and those who underwent the procedure with combined instrumentation. Set-up time, procedure time, and clinical outcome endpoints were compared. Costs associated with each process were estimated. RESULTS: Surgical set-up time was lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 25.1 ± 9.6 min vs. 35.7 ± 10.4 min (p < 0.01) and mean for bilateral cases, 33.1 ± 10.3 min vs. 43.5 ± 9.9 min (p = 0.31)]. Procedure time was significantly lower using the combined kit versus separate kits [mean for unilateral cases, 156.2 ± 31.7 min vs. 172.1 ± 33.0 min (p < 0.05) and mean for bilateral cases, 207.3 ± 39.3 min vs. 228. 8 ± 42.7 min (p = 0.03)]. Post-operative outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at 6 months post-surgery (p = 0.72). Due to a decrease in operating room utilization and costs associated with instrumentation, we estimated $134,396 to $206,621 with unilateral cases and a $289,167 to $465,967 in yearly savings with bilateral cases by using the combined process. CONCLUSION: Mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction utilizing combined instrumentation, with surgeons working simultaneously, led to decreased operating room utilization and costs without impacting clinical outcomes. Level of evidence II.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Silicone versus Saline Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: The most common type of breast reconstruction is implant-based breast reconstruction. Implant-based reconstruction has been reported to impact quality-of-life outcomes. Therefore, the authors sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of saline versus silicone implants. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent breast reconstruction with saline or silicone implants at their institution. This included type of procedure, acellular dermal matrix use, complications, and number of revisions. Costs were estimated using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services physician fee schedule and hospital costs. Effectiveness was measured using BREAST-Q-adjusted life-years, a measure of years of perfect breast health, based on BREAST-Q data collected before mastectomy and reconstruction and at 12 months after final reconstruction. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was obtained for silicone and saline reconstruction. RESULTS: The authors identified 134 women, among which 77 (57 percent) underwent silicone and 57 (43 percent) underwent saline breast reconstruction. The cost of saline reconstruction was $1288.23 less compared with silicone. BREAST-Q-adjusted life-years were 28.11 for saline and 23.57 for silicone, demonstrating higher cost-effectiveness for saline. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for saline was -$283.48, or $283.48 less per year of perfect breast-related health postreconstruction than silicone. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results indicate that saline breast reconstruction may be more cost-effective compared with silicone at 12 months after final reconstruction. Silicone was both more expensive and less effective than saline. However, given the relatively small cost difference, surgeon and patient preference may be important in determining type of implant used.

Utility and Cost Effectiveness of Routine, Histologic Evaluation of the Mastectomy Scar in Two-Stage, Implant-Based Reconstruction during Expander-to-Implant Exchange.

BACKGROUND: Routine histologic analysis of the mastectomy scar is well studied in the delayed breast construction population; no data regarding its utility in the immediate, staged reconstruction cohort have been published. METHODS: A retrospective review of all of the senior author's (C.D.C.) patients who underwent immediate, staged reconstruction was performed. The mastectomy scar was analyzed routinely at the time of expander-to-implant exchange. Six hundred forty-seven breasts were identified. The mastectomy scar, time between expander and permanent implant, average patient age, and mastectomy indication were calculated. A cost analysis was completed. RESULTS: All scar pathologic results were negative for in-scar recurrence. The majority, 353 breasts, underwent mastectomy for carcinoma, 94 for germline mutations, 15 for high-risk lesions, six for high family risk, and 179 for contralateral symmetry/risk reduction. The average age at mastectomy/expander placement was 47.7 ± 10.3 years, and the average time between expander placement and implant exchange was 254 ± 152 days. The total histologic charge per breast was $602. CONCLUSIONS: A clinically silent in-scar recurrence is, at most, a rare occurrence. Routine histologic analysis of the mastectomy scar can be safely avoided in the immediate, staged reconstruction cohort. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Assessing value in breast reconstruction: A systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.

INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction is one of the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons and is achieved through various choices in both technology and method. Cost-effectiveness analyses are increasingly important in assessing differences in value between treatment options, which is relevant in a world of confined resources. A thorough evaluation of the cost-effectiveness literature can assist surgeons and health systems evaluate high-value care models. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was conducted. Two reviewers independently evaluated all publications up until August 17, 2017. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates, 1996 records were screened, from which 53 studies underwent full text review. All the 13 studies included for final analysis mention an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Five studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of technologies including acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in staged prosthetic reconstruction, ADM in direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, preoperative computed tomography angiography in autologous reconstruction, indocyanine green dye angiography in evaluating anastomotic patency, and abdominal mesh reinforcement in abdominal tissue transfer. The remaining eight studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different reconstruction methods. Cost-effective strategies included free vs. pedicled abdominal tissue transfer, DTI vs. staged prosthetic reconstruction, and fascia-sparing variants of free abdominal tissue transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence demonstrates multiple cost-effective technologies and methods in accomplishing successful breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons should be well informed of such economic models when engaging payers and policymakers in discussions regarding high-value breast reconstruction.

Cost analysis of postmastectomy reconstruction: A comparison of two staged implant reconstruction using tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix with abdominal-based perforator free flaps.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two staged tissue expander-implant with acellular dermal matrix (TE/I + ADM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap are the most common implant and autologous methods of reconstruction in the U.S. Implant-based techniques are disproportionally more popular, partially due to its presumed cost effectiveness. We performed a comprehensive cost analysis to compare TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap. METHODS: A comparative cost analysis of TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap was performed. Medicare reimbursement costs for each procedure and their associated complications were calculated. Pooled probabilities of complications including cellulitis, seroma, skin necrosis, implant removal, flap loss, partial flap loss, and fat necrosis, were calculated using published studies from 2010 to 2016. RESULTS: Average actual cost for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $13 304.55 and $10 237.13, respectively. Incorporating pooled complication data from published literature resulted in an increase in cost to $13 963.46 for TE/I + ADM and $12 624.29 for DIEP flap. The expected costs for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $9700.35 and $8644.23, which are lower than the actual costs. CONCLUSIONS: DIEP flap breast reconstruction incurs lower costs compared to TE/I + ADM. These costs are lower at baseline and when additional costs from pooled complications are incorporated.

Comparing Health Care Resource Use between Implant and Autologous Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In the debate on reconstruction of the irradiated breast, there is little information on associated health care resource use. Nationwide data were used to examine health care resource use associated with implant and autologous reconstruction. It was hypothesized that failure rates would contribute the most to higher average cumulative cost with either reconstruction method. METHODS: From the 2009 to 2013 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, irradiated breast cancer patients who underwent implant or autologous reconstruction were selected. In a 24-month follow-up period, the cumulative costs of health care services used were tallied and described. Regression models stratified by reconstruction method were then used to estimate the influence of failure on cumulative cost of reconstruction. RESULTS: There were 2964 study patients. Most (78 percent) underwent implant reconstruction. The unadjusted mean costs for implant and autologous reconstructions were $22,868 and $30,527, respectively. Thirty-two percent of implant reconstructions failed, compared with 5 percent of autologous cases. Twelve percent of the implant reconstructions had two or more failures and required subsequent autologous reconstruction. The cost of implant reconstruction failure requiring a flap was $47,214, and the cost for autologous failures was $48,344. In aggregate, failures constituted more than 20 percent of the cumulative costs of implant reconstruction compared with less than 5 percent for autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in 10 patients who had implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy to the breast eventually required a flap for failure. These findings make a case for autologous reconstruction being primarily considered in irradiated patients who have this option available.

[Reconstructive breast surgery using implant and mesh].

The demand for reconstructive surgery after therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy is increasing. The hammock technique for breast reconstruction was introduced in 2001 and provides support for the implant using either biologically derived or synthetic mesh. The material is formed as a hammock in the lower pole of the reconstructed breast, and due to its supportive capabilities it has been found to shorten the time needed for reconstruction, decrease the risk of capsular contracture and leave a superior aesthetic result. Correct patient selection seems crucial for optimizing the aesthetic outcome and minimizing complications.

Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction without the Use of an Acellular Dermal Matrix Is Cost Effective and Oncologically Safe.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a predictable, reliable, and cost-effective reconstruction. Most units performing direct-to-implant reconstructions recommend the use of an acellular dermal matrix or a mesh to reinforce the lower pole of the breast reconstruction. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-two consecutive patients with 488 immediate direct-to-implant breast reconstructions performed in a 34-month period are included in this group. Mean follow-up of this group is 35 months. RESULTS: Four hundred eight reconstructions were performed through a lazy-S mastectomy, and 80 were performed through a Wise pattern mastectomy. Two local recurrences occurred. Minor complications accounted for 5.5 percent (n = 27): seromas, 3.4 percent (n = 17); wound healing problems, 0.6 percent (n = 3); and grade 2 capsular contracture, 1.4 percent (n = 7). Major complications accounted for 4.3 percent (n = 21): infection, 0.8 percent (n = 4); prosthetic loss, 0.4 percent (n = 2); hematoma, 0.4 percent (n = 2); and wounds requiring débridement, 2 percent (n = 10). The additional cost of acellular dermal matrix is dependent on manufacturer and size, but increases the cost of the procedure by 35.5 to 47.7 percent. CONCLUSIONS: This reconstruction method compares very favorably with published data from other units as far as early and late complications and cosmetic outcome are concerned. It has a complication rate similar to that of reconstructions using an acellular dermal matrix and is more cost effective. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

A comparison of patient-centered economic and clinical outcomes of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction between obese and non-obese patients.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to compare, by patient obesity status, the contemporary utilization patterns of different reconstruction surgery types, understand postoperative complication profiles in the community setting, and analyze the financial impact on health care payers and patients. METHODS: Using data from the MarketScan Health Risk Assessment Database and Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, we identified breast cancer patients who received breast reconstruction surgery following mastectomy between 2009 and 2012. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate the utilization pattern of breast reconstruction surgery. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to estimate the association between obesity status and infectious, wound, and perfusion complications within one year of surgery. A generalized linear model was used to compare total, complication-related, and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: The rate of TE/implant-based reconstruction increased significantly for non-obese patients but not for obese patients during the years analyzed, whereas autologous reconstruction decreased for both patient groups. Obesity was associated with higher odds of infectious, wound, and perfusion complications after TE/implant-based reconstruction, and higher odds of perfusion complications after autologous reconstruction. The adjusted total healthcare costs and out-of-pocket costs were similar for obese and non-obese patients for either type of breast reconstruction surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A greater likelihood of one-year complications arose from TE/implant-based vs autologous reconstruction surgery in obese patients. Given that out-of-pocket costs were independent of the type of reconstruction, greater emphasis should be placed on conveying the surgery-related complications to obese patients to aid in patient-based decision making with their plastic surgeons and oncologists.

Comparison of one-stage vs two-stage prosthesis-based breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review is to comprehensively compare the outcomes of one-stage and two-stage prosthesis-based breast reconstruction via meta-analytic methodology. DATA SOURCES: Seventeen studies comparing one-stage and two-stage prosthesis-based breast reconstruction were reviewed. The analysis divided the outcomes into 3 categories: complications, esthetic satisfaction, and total cost for completing reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The one-stage reconstruction group was at significantly higher risk for reconstruction failure and overall complications than the two-stage group. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the results of nipple-sparing mastectomy. The esthetic result analysis demonstrated that both methods showed comparably positive outcomes. The one-stage group incurred lower cost for completing reconstruction than the two-stage group, despite the higher cost for treatment-related complications. Our results suggest that the risks for adverse outcome in patients undergoing one-stage reconstruction may be comparable with that of two-stage reconstruction when performed in patients receiving a nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, further well-controlled studies are required to draw more solid conclusions.

Thoracic Intercostal Nerve Blocks Reduce Opioid Consumption and Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, narcotics have been used for analgesia after breast surgery. However, these agents have unpleasant side effects. Intercostal nerve blockade is an alternative technique to improve postoperative pain. In this study, the authors investigate outcomes in patients who receive thoracic intercostal nerve blocks for implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed. The operative technique for breast reconstruction and administration of nerve blocks is detailed. Demographic factors, length of stay, and complications were recorded. The consumption of morphine, Valium, Zofran, and oxycodone was recorded. Data sets for patients receiving thoracic intercostal nerve blocks were compared against those that did not. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients were included. For patients undergoing bilateral reconstruction with nerve blocks, there was a significant reduction in length of stay (1.87 days versus 2.32 days; p = 0.001), consumption of intravenous morphine (5.15 mg versus 12.68 mg; p = 0.041) and Valium (22.24 mg versus 31.13 mg; p = 0.026). For patients undergoing unilateral reconstruction with nerve blocks, there was a significant reduction in consumption of intravenous morphine (2.80 mg versus 8.17 mg; p = 0.007). For bilateral reconstruction with intercostal nerve block, cost savings equaled $2873.14 per patient. For unilateral reconstruction with intercostal nerve block, cost savings equaled $1532.34 per patient. CONCLUSION: The authors' data demonstrate a reduction in the consumption of pain medication, in the hospital length of stay, and in hospital costs for patients receiving intercostal nerve blocks at the time of pectoralis elevation for implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.