Lymphoscintigraphy is frequently recommended but seldom used in a "real world setting".

OBJECTIVE: Lymphedema (LED) lacks a standard, simple, guiding noninvasive diagnostic test, unlike the two other circulatory disorders-arterial or venous disease. Lymphoscintigraphy (LSG) has been recommended by several guidelines as the diagnostic test of choice for LED. Several recent expert panels, however, have suggested from anecdotal experience that LSG was used infrequently, and that the diagnosis of LED is usually based on clinical examination. METHODS: To determine the use of LSG in a large real-world LED population, the International Business Machines MarketScan Research Database was examined from April 2012 to March 2020 for patients with a new diagnosis of LED (the index date). Use of LSG (LSG+) was ascertained during the period beginning 12 months prior to the initial coding of a LED diagnosis and ending 12 months after the index date based on the corresponding Current Procedural Terminology code; LSG use for sentinel node mapping at the time of oncologic surgery was excluded. Demographic profiles, comorbidities, and causes of LED among patients with and without evidence of LSG were characterized. RESULTS: We identified 57,674 patients, aged ≥18 years, who had a new diagnosis of LED and health care coverage for ≥12 months before and after this index date. Only a small number (1429; 2.5%) of these patients underwent LSG during the study period. The LSG + cohort was younger (53.7 vs 60.7 years), had a higher proportion of women (91.3% vs 73.4%), but a lower percentage of diabetes (12.8% vs 27.5%), heart failure (2.2% vs 8.7%), hypertension (32.4% vs 51.0%), and obesity (15.1% vs 22.2%) compared with the LED population who did not undergo LSG (all P < .001). Most importantly, the use of LSG for diagnosis varied with the etiology of LED (LSG was most frequently utilized among patients with melanoma-LED (9.5%) and patients with breast cancer-LED (6.7%), in contrast to patients with advanced venous disease-related LED (1.1%; P < .05 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Despite four guidelines recommending LSG, including the Guidelines of the American Venous Forum (Handbook of Venous and Lymphatic Disease-4th edition), which recommended LSG "for the initial evaluation of patients with LED" with a 1B recommendation, LSG plays a minor role in establishing the diagnosis of LED in the United States. This underlines the need for a better, simple diagnostic test for LED to complement clinical examination.

The Benefit of Cost-Transparency Calculators Does Not Extend to Vascular Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated that every hospital create a publicly available webtool for pricing various medical services in an effort to give patients transparency in regard to their health care expenses and allow patients to "shop around" to receive the care most fitting their budget. Our objective is to investigate the utility this mandate provides for vascular surgery patients. METHODS: Standardized searches were performed to find patient cost calculators for Newsweek's Top 50 Hospitals in the United States. If the webtool was found, a list of standardized searches were performed to investigate whether the tool listed prices for the following vascular procedures: Arteriovenous fistula (AVF), varicose vein procedures, and Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR). RESULTS: Of the 50 hospitals included, all had an easily accessible web-based cost estimator tool. The average time to find the cost estimator was 33.27 sec. Of these 50 hospitals, 10% provided cost information on AVF surgery, 12% provided cost information on varicose vein procedures, and 0% provided information on EVAR. There was no difference in the hospital's likelihood to report a price based on region of the United States. Average preinsurance price for AVF surgery was $11,933.61 and $22,191 for vein procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, despite good adherence to the CMS mandate requiring a publicly available pricing tool, these tools provide little to no information for vascular surgery patients. Overall, this discrepancy places vascular surgery patients at a significant disadvantage. As such, vascular patients do not have access to the knowledge necessary to financially prepare for surgery, and furthermore, they are not afforded the luxury to choose where to have procedures performed based on price variability. Hopefully this research will encourage hospitals to broaden the scope of their cost calculators to allow it to benefit all patients.

A Case Study: Preserved Nipple-Areolar Complex Vascularity in High-Risk Secondary Reduction Mammaplasty Using Single-Stage Suction-Assisted Lipectomy With Dermal Mastopexy.

Repeat surgery is known to increase risk of several surgical complications, including compromise to the blood supply of/surrounding the surgical site. As such, we offer an alternative to the use of a standard breast reduction technique in the case of a re-do reduction, pursued with a goal of maintaining the blood supply to the nipple-areola complex. When compared to traditional reduction mammoplasty, suction-assisted lipectomy with dermal mastopexy has been demonstrated to be a highly effective technique in protecting the vascularity of the nipple-areola complex in repeat breast reductions. We describe a successful utilization of this technique for a high-risk patient with active tobacco use undergoing secondary reduction mammoplasty.

Impact of lymphedema in the management of venous leg ulcers.

INTRODUCTION: Lymphedema (LED) in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLU) [VLU+LED] can impair ulcer healing and predispose to cellulitis. There is little data, however, demonstrating how lymphatic dysfunction may impact the clinical course, treatment, and healthcare expenditures for VLU+LED versus VLU-LED patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine how lymphatic dysfunction might influence treatment and expenditures among VLU patients in a large deidentified healthcare claims database. METHODS: A retrospective cohort design and data from the IBM MarketScan Database (April 2013 to March 2019) were employed. Study population comprised VLU patients, and was stratified into two subgroups: VLU+LED (index date = date of first LED diagnosis) and VLU-LED (index dates randomly assigned to match distribution of index dates for VLU+LED). Within each subgroup, patients with <1 year of healthcare claims information before and after their index dates were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, procedures/treatments, as well as all-cause post-index medical resource utilization and expenditures ($/patient/year) of the two groups were compared. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weights (IPTWs) were employed to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 5466 VLU patients were identified (VLU+LED: N = 299; VLU-LED: N = 5167). Overall ambulatory encounters (AMB ENC) and their components were higher in VLU+LED, which were reflected in increased expenditures for this group (Table 1). Treatment with endovenous ablation (EVA) or stenting for venous hypertension as well as for specific measures for LED were higher in the 1-year post-index period for VLU+LED. The use of LED specific therapy was low for both groups, but a greater percentage of VLU+LED patients received therapy, which was predominantly manual lymphatic drainage (17.4%) rather than pneumatic compression (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical presence of LED in patients with VLU is a marker for a more complex disease process with more episodes of cellulitis and expenditures, but a surprisingly low specific treatment for LED.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature.

INTRODUCTION: To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level. RESULTS: A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

Variable Accessibility to Consumer Pricing Among Breast Cancer Operations.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that every US hospital provide public online pricing information for services rendered. This allows patients to compare prices across hospital systems before establishing care. The goal of this project was to evaluate hospital compliance and patient-level accessibility to price transparency for common breast cancer surgical procedures. METHODS: A sample case of a 62-year-old female with a T2N0 breast cancer was chosen. The patient would have the option of undergoing a partial mastectomy or mastectomy, both with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). Eight Massachusetts academic medical centers were evaluated. Searches were performed by authors for each hospital system and procedure using the sample case. RESULTS: Every hospital had a cost calculator on its website. The average success rate of establishing a cost for partial mastectomy, mastectomy, and SLNB was 58, 35, and 25%, respectively. The median time to reach the cost calculator tool was 32 s (range 25-37 s). In successful attempts, the median pre-insurance estimated cost of a partial mastectomy was $16,509 (range $11,776-22,169), compared with $24,541 (range $16,921-25,543) for mastectomy and $12,342 (range $4034-20,644) for SLNB. SLNB costs varied significantly across hospitals (p = 0.025), but no statistically significant difference was observed for partial mastectomy or mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Despite new regulatory requirements by CMS for increased price transparency for surgical procedures, our results demonstrate poor success rates in obtaining cost estimates and significant variability of reported hospital charges. Further efforts to improve the quality of hospital cost estimate calculators are necessary for informed decision-making for patients with breast cancer.