Early post-operative outcome of pre-pectoral implant-based immediate total breast reconstruction with Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl™) mesh - low cost solution for a low-middle income country.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of breast cancer in Pakistan has been rising with approximately one third of these patients requiring mastectomy. Among breast reconstruction treatment options, the use of Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) for pre-pectoral breast implant surgery has proven effective with improved cosmetic outcome. However, due to high cost it cannot be regularly implemented in a developing country like Pakistan. An alternative to ADM, Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl™, Ethicon) mesh has been introduced in pre-pectoral breast reconstructive surgery which has shown to be almost 10 times lower in cost. We set out to determine the frequency of early postoperative complications when using Polyglactin 910 mesh for pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction surgery. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective, chart review was conducted, and a total 28 women were included in the study. Thirty-two pre-pectoral implant-based mastectomies with Polyglactin 910 mesh were performed. Early post-operative outcomes (within 12 months of procedure) including duration of antibiotic use, post-operative infection, implant displacement, flap necrosis, seroma formation, wound dehiscence, hematoma formation, capsular contracture and reconstruction failure, were recorded. RESULTS: Only 4 (12.5%) women experienced early post-operative morbidity. One patient developed a wound dehiscence, which eventually led to reconstruction failure and removal of the implant. Another patient had seroma formation and flap necrosis. None of the patients developed postoperative implant displacement, hematoma formation or capsular contracture in the early post-operative period. CONCLUSION: This study reveals that early post-operative outcomes with Polyglactin 910 mesh in breast reconstructive surgery are few, thus making it a cost effective, reliable, and safe treatment option, especially in developing countries like Pakistan.

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.

The Early Years of Practice: An Assessment of Operative Efficiency and Cost of Free Flap and Implant Breast Reconstruction at an Academic Institution.

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term costs, and financial implications of improvements in operative efficiency of free flap and implant-based breast reconstruction within an academic practice. Methods The billing records of 162 patients who underwent postmastectomy implant-based or free flap breast reconstruction by two newly hired microsurgeons at an academic institution during the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fiscal years were reviewed. Actual data on professional revenue, relative value units (RVUs), and facility costs for the first stage of reconstruction as well as costs of postoperative complications were assessed. Results Free flaps consistently generated more revenue and RVUs than implants (p < 0.001). Rates of major complications and associated costs were greater for free flaps during the first 2 years of practice; however, by the 3rd year rates were similar between free flaps and implants (14.3 vs. 18.2%, p = 0.72). There was a 26% reduction in free flap operative time in 2013 as compared with 2011. Operative efficiency (hourly RVU) of first stage procedures increased each year for both modalities. At the completion of reconstruction, flaps and implants had comparable hourly reimbursement ($1,053 vs. $947, p = 0.72) and hourly RVU (22 vs. 29, p = 0.06). Conclusions Contrary to perceptions that free flap breast reconstructions are financially inefficient for the surgeon, we have found that these complex reconstructive procedures are profitable. Even in the early years of practice, hourly reimbursements from completed flap reconstructions are similar to reimbursements received from similar staged implant reconstructions.

A Longitudinal Assessment of Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization After Immediate Breast Reconstruction-Comparing Implant- and Autologous-based Breast Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for cancer has increased in recent years, yet long-term, modality-specific comparative data are lacking. We performed this study to compare short- and long-term outcomes after expander, autologous (AT), and direct-to-implant (DI) breast reconstruction. METHODS: Using four state-level inpatient and ambulatory surgery databases, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult women who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2009. Our primary outcomes were complications within 90 days of surgery, rate of secondary breast surgery within 3 years, and cumulative healthcare charges. RESULTS: The final cohort included 15,154 women who underwent mastectomy with tissue expander (TE: 70.5%), autologous (AT: 18.1%), or direct to implant (DI: 11.3%) reconstruction. Ninety-day complications were lowest after expander and highest after AT breast reconstruction (TE = 6.5% [reference] vs AT = 13.1% [2.09, 1.82-2.41] vs DI = 6.6% [1.03, 0.84-1.27], P < 0.001). However, adjusted rates of secondary breast procedures were most frequent after expander (2021/1000 discharges) and least frequent after AT (949.0/1000 discharges) reconstruction (P < 0.001). Specifically, unplanned revisions were highest among the tissue expander cohort (TE = 59.2% vs AT = 34.4% vs DI = 45.9%, P < 0.001). The cumulative, adjusted healthcare charges for secondary breast procedures differed slightly across groups (TE = $63,806 vs AT = $66,882 vs DI = $64,145, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complications and secondary breast procedures, including unplanned revisions, after breast reconstruction are common and vary by reconstructive modality. The frequency of these secondary procedures adds substantial healthcare charges to the care of the breast reconstruction patient.

Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix.

BACKGROUND: Use of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction has been widely adopted. Despite an increasing focus on health care costs, few reports have addressed the financial implications of ADM use. This study sought to examine the costs of the two-stage technique with and without ADM, concentrating on the direct variable costs of patient care during the expansion process. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted. Data were collected on 132 cases resulting in a second-stage exchange for a permanent implant. The findings showed that AlloDerm was used in 61 reconstructions and Strattice in 23 reconstructions. The primary outcome was the number of fills required to achieve the final expander fill volume. The cost of subsequent patient encounters for expansion was estimated using institutional cost data. RESULTS: The number of fills required to achieve the final volume was higher in the non-ADM group (6.5 ± 1.7) than in the ADM group (3.6 ± 1.4) (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in the small fill volumes (<350 ml; 5.3 vs. 3.7; p > 0.05). The difference was significant in the larger fill volumes (>500 ml; 8.3 vs. 3.7; p < 0.05). Relative to non-ADM reconstruction, with AlloDerm at current prices, the cost increase ranged from $2,727.75 for large reconstructions to $3,290.25 for small reconstructions ($2,167.75-$2,739.25 with Strattice). CONCLUSION: The use of ADM in two-stage reconstruction reduces the number of visits required for reconstructions with 350 ml or more. However, at current pricings, the direct cost of ADM use does not offset the cost savings from the reduced number of visits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix.

A comparative cost analysis of breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and traditional tissue expander-/implant-based techniques was carried out. Medicare reimbursement costs were calculated for tissue expander/implant alone (TE/I), TE/I with ADM (TE/I + ADM), and single-stage implant (SSI) with ADM (SSI + ADM). The most expensive procedure at baseline was TE/I + ADM ($11,255.78), followed by TE/I alone ($10,934.18), and SSI + ADM ($5,423.02). Incorporating the probability of complications as derived from the published literature into the cost analysis resulted in an increase in the excess cost of ADM-based procedures (TE/I + ADM, $11,829.02; TE/I, $11,238.60; SSI + ADM, $5,909.83). Although SSI + ADM have the lowest cost, not all patients are suitable candidates for this type of procedure. With increasing focus on healthcare expenditure, it is important that plastic surgeons are aware of the cost implications of using ADM products.

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.

Underfinancing of 90.3% for implant costs of prostheses and expanders in DRG revenues for uni- and bilateral mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: From the clinic's point of view economic patient care requires comparison and adjustment of costs to revenues. To verify cost coverage for implants in mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, a comprehensive cost-reimbursement analysis was performed. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) revenues for implants from the DRG Browser 2007/2009HA and comparison with actual costs for implants in 2009 from the annual clinic report and the database of the controlling department. Calculation of the relative cost coverage for implants in unilateral (DRG J06Z) and bilateral mastectomy (DRG J16Z). RESULTS: In 2009, n = 98 J06Z and n = 18 J16Z were performed. DRG-calculated expenses for implants were € 69.65 for J06Z and € 123.07 for J16Z, i.e. a total of € 9,040.96. Actual costs for all implants were € 121,645.60, mean € 699.11 (€ 404.94-1,171.44). Attributable implant costs for 100% immediate breast reconstruction rate were € 93,679.28. Thus, implants are not cost covering by -90.3% (-82.8 to -94.7%). Subsidies for implants from the clinic's budget range from € 335.29 to € 2,219.81 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate breast reconstruction with implants after mastectomy is - even 6 years after introduction of the DRGs - not adequately calculated to be cost covering since the actual implant costs exceed the calculated revenues by far. At present, these implants are subsidized by the clinic at, on average, 90.3%. If economic patient care is mandatory, a maximum of only 1 in 10 patients with mastectomy can be offered immediate breast reconstruction with implants in Germany.

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.

The Costs of Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Episode-Based Bundled Payment Models.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors' objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models. METHODS: The cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs. RESULTS: Among 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Episode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.

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.

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.

A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: For larger cancers in moderate to large breast sized women, breast surgical cancer treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction (SSIR). Often in the case of LVOS, reduction mammaplasty designs are used in the oncoplastic reconstructions with a contralateral symmetry operation. The goal of this study was to investigate the cost-utility between LVOS versus SSIR to determine which approach is cost-effective in the treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed to determine baseline values and ranges. An average national Medicare payment rates using DRG and CPT codes were used for cost assessment. After constructing a decision tree, an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was calculated comparing the difference for both surgical options in costs by the difference in clinical-effectiveness. To validate our results, we performed one-way sensitivity analyses in addition to a Monte-Carlo analysis. RESULTS: An ICUR of $546.81/QALY favoring LVOS was calculated based off of its clinical-effectiveness gain of 7.67 QALY at an additional cost of $4194. One-way sensitivity analyses underscored the degree by which LVOS was cost-effective. For example, LVOS became cost-ineffective when a successful LVOS cost more than $50,000. Similarly, probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation showed that even with varying multiple variables at once, results tended to favor our conclusion supporting the cost-effectiveness of LVOS. CONCLUSIONS: For the appropriate patients with moderate to large sized breasts with breast cancer, large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery is cost-effective compared to mastectomy with single staged implant reconstruction.

Trends in Physician Payments for Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic breast reconstruction rates have risen in the United States, whereas autologous techniques have stagnated. Meanwhile, single-institution data demonstrate that physician payments for prosthetic reconstruction are rising, while payments for autologous techniques are unchanged. This study aims to assess payment trends and variation for tissue expander and free flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: The Blue Health Intelligence database was queried from 2009 to 2013, identifying women with claims for breast reconstruction. Trends in the incidence of surgery and physician reimbursement were characterized by method and year using regression models. RESULTS: There were 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction, with a significant rise in tissue expander cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; p < 0.001) and an unchanged incidence of free flap cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.02; p = 0.222). Bilateral tissue expander cases reimbursed 1.32 times more than unilateral tissue expanders, whereas bilateral free flaps reimbursed 1.61 times more than unilateral variants. The total growth in adjusted tissue expander mean payments was 6.5 percent (from $2232 to $2378) compared with -1.8 percent (from $3858 to $3788) for free flaps. Linear modeling showed significant increases for tissue expander reimbursements only. Surgeon payments varied more for free flaps (the 25th to 75th percentile interquartile range was $2243 for free flaps versus $987 for tissue expanders). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of tissue expander cases and reimbursements rose over a period where the incidence of free flap cases and reimbursements plateaued. Reasons for stagnation in free flaps are unclear; however, the opportunity cost of performing this procedure may incentivize the alternative technique. Greater payment variation in autologous reconstruction suggests the opportunity for negotiation with payers.

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.