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.

Single-Stage Adipofascial Turnover Flap as an Alternate Option for Large Nasal Defects Usually Requiring Two-Stage Forehead Flap.

BACKGROUND: Large nasal defects involving the tip, ala, and/or columella with denuded cartilage have traditionally required a two-stage forehead flap. As many Mohs patients are presenting older with increased medical comorbidities, a single-stage adipofascial turnover flap with a full-thickness skin graft was developed by the senior author as an alternative method. The authors hypothesize that the adipofascial turnover flap would have similar success rates and cost less than the forehead flap. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients in the senior author's practice who underwent either a forehead flap or adipofascial turnover flap between January of 2016 and February of 2019 was conducted. The two groups were compared regarding success, complications, and cost. RESULTS: There were seven forehead flap patients and 11 patients with adipofascial turnover flaps. Overall complications were three of seven (43 percent) for the forehead flap group and one of 11 (9 percent) for the adipofascial turnover flap group. There was one mortality, one revision for asymmetry, and one with airflow obstruction in the forehead group. The adipofascial turnover flap group had one partial skin graft loss that healed with local wound care only. There were no flap failures in either group, and the cost savings averaged over $22,000 in the adipofascial turnover flap group. CONCLUSIONS: The single-stage adipofascial turnover flap with full-thickness skin grafting is a safe, reliable, and less expensive alternate to the forehead flap. The forehead flap will remain a workhorse in nasal reconstruction, but multiple operations increase cost and may contribute to higher complication rates. The adipofascial turnover flap appears to be an efficacious and reasonable option compared with the forehead flap.

Colgajos de perforantes intercostales en reconstrucción postraumática de miembros superiores como alternativa en países de ingresos medios y bajos / Intercostal perforator flaps in upper limbs reconstruction as an alternative in middle and low-income countries

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVO: Los colgajos de perforantes son una técnica de la Cirugía Reconstructiva que utiliza una porción de piel y/o grasa subcutánea vascularizada por uno o varios vasos que perforan un plano profundo (músculo, fascia o tabique), tomada de una zona distante o adyacente, para cerrar y restaurar un área de defecto corporal. Permiten realizar reconstrucciones utilizando estructuras adecuadas sin desvitalizar las áreas donantes. El objetivo de este artículo es describir la experiencia en el cierre y la reconstrucción de heridas traumáticas de antebrazo y mano mediante el uso de colgajos pediculados de vasos perforantes intercostales, específicamente de arterias laterales, dorsolaterales y/o anteriores, como una opción reconstructiva accesible, funcional y estéticamente viable, en países con ingresos medios y bajos en los que se cuenta con un acceso limitado al uso de la Microcirugía en casos de emergencia. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Presentamos 3 casos clínicos representativos que ejemplifican el uso de distintos tipos de colgajos de perforantes intercostales como alternativa a la amputación quirúrgica en lesiones extensas de miembro superior, que por su complejidad, comprometen la viabilidad del mismo. Los 3 casos fueron atendidos en uno de los 3 hospitales de referencia de adultos de la Seguridad Social de un país de ingresos medios, Costa Rica, donde no se dispone de acesso habitual a la Microcirugía. RESULTADOS: Los 3 pacientes son varones. Caso 1: de 19 años de edad; fractura expuesta y lesión en antebrazo con compromiso de piel y tejidos blandos a consecuencia de accidente automovilístico; reconstrucción con colgajo LICAP de 32 X 12 cm. Caso 2: de 21 años de edad; trauma importante en codo y mano a consecuencia de accidente de tránsito; reconstrucción con colgajo AICAP izquierdo de 8 X 10 cm y LICAP derecho de 20 X 12 cm. Caso 3: de 32 años de edad; pérdida de la cara anterior del antebrazo derecho por accidente con cristal; intervención vascular y después colgajo LICAP de 30 X 10 cm. En todos los casos se utilizaron colgajos con 2 perforantes y la autonomización se realizó a las 3 semanas de la intervención. Cierre adecuado de las heridas y evolución de los colgajos sin complicaciones con recuperación de funcionalidad. CONCLUSIONES: En realidades donde los recursos sanitarios son limitados y no siempre están disponibles alternativas terapéuticas novedosas, nuestra experiencia, apoyada en los 3 casos descritos, muestra como los colgajos de perforantes intercostales son una alternativa viable en la reconstrucción postraumática de miembros superiores

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Perforator flaps are a reconstructive surgery technique that uses a portion of skin and/or subcutaneous fat tissue vascularized by one or more vessels that perforate a deep plane (muscle, fascia or septum), which is removed from a distant or adjacent part to close and restore the excised section. This procedure allows reconstruction using appropriate structures without devitalizing the donor area. The aim of this report is to describe the experience in the closure and reconstruction of traumatic forearm and hand wounds using pedicled flaps of perforating intercostal arteries from lateral, dorsolateral and/or anterior vessels, as an accessible, functional and aesthetically viable option, in low- and middle-income countries where other alternatives such as Microsurgery are not frequently accessible. METHODS: We describe 3 procedures to exemplify reconstruction by using different types of intercostal perforator flaps as an alternative to surgical amputation of extensive traumatic upper limb injuries that, due to complexity, compromise their viability. The selection of cases corresponds to patients attended in one of the 3 referral hospitals of Social Security of a middle-income country, Costa Rica, where Microsurgery is not usually available. RESULTS: All cases corresponded to male patients. Case 1: 19-year-old patient who, after a car accident, presented an exposed fracture and an extensive forearm injury that compromised skin and soft tissue; reconstruction with a 32 X 12 cm LICAP flap. Case 2: 21-year-old patient who, after a traffic accident, presented significant trauma to the elbow and hand; reconstruction with a left 8 X 10 cm AICAP flap and a right 20 X 12 cm LICAP flap. Case 3: 32-year-old patient presenting loss of the anterior aspect of the right forearm after an accident with a glass window; he required prior vascular intervention and was subsequently treated with a 30 X 10 cm LICAP flap. In all cases, flaps with 2 perforators were used and autonomization was performed 3 weeks after the intervention. Likewise, adequate wound closure, flap evolution without complications, and recovery of functionality were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: In scenarios where healthcare resources are limited and the newest therapeutic alternatives are not always available, our experience, supported by the 3 cases described, shows how the use of intercostal perforating flaps constitutes a viable alternative in the reconstruction of upper limbs after trauma, especially in low- and middle-income countries

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives. METHODS: Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices. RESULTS: Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

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.

Wound closure with Karydakis flap is decreasing the perioperative costs after pilonidal sinus excision as compared to lay-open approach.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a simple flap closing procedure by Karydakis flap (KF) after pilonidal sinus excision on the costs and healing time as compared to routine lay-open technique. METHOD: Out of 44 consecutive patients operated on for pilonidal excision (November 2013-March 2015), 17 had a Karydakis flap and 27 a lay-open procedure. For each patient, the length of stay, the operating time (OT), the time needed for complete healing and postoperative care resources were recorded. The global costs included OT, nursing care quantity, and modalities until complete scar healing. RESULTS: One reoperation in the lay-open group was necessary during the follow-up (8±5months). No recurrence occurred. Postoperative morbidity was similar in both groups. Results showed that KF global cost was inferior as compared to lay-open technique (941±178€ vs. 1601±399€; P=0.0001), KF healed faster (32±17 vs. 59±22days; P=0.0001), whereas OT was longer in KF group (16±7 vs. 25±4min; P=0.001). CONCLUSION: KF allows a faster healing time and a 41% lower cost than lay-open technique. Preferential use of KF rather than lay-open procedure could allow a significant health cost saving.

Cost-effectiveness of Early Division of the Forehead Flap Pedicle.

IMPORTANCE: The paramedian forehead flap is considered the gold standard procedure to optimally reconstruct major defects of the nose, but this procedure generally requires 2 stages, where the flap pedicle is divided 3 weeks following the initial surgery to ensure adequate revascularization of the flap from the surrounding recipient tissue bed, which can cost a patient time out of work or away from normal social habits. It has previously been shown that the pedicle may be safely divided after 2 weeks in select patients where revascularization from the recipient bed was confirmed using intraoperative laser fluorescence angiography to potentially save the patient time and money. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of takedown of the paramedian forehead flap pedicle after 2 weeks using angiography with indocyanine green (ICG). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent 2-week division of the forehead flap after nasal reconstruction. Patient, tumor, defect, and outcomes data were collected. Cost-minimization analysis was performed by comparing the overall costs of 2-week takedown with angiography to a hypothetical patient undergoing 3-week takedown without angiography. INTERVENTION: Two-week division of the forehead flap after nasal reconstruction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cost-minimization analysis performed by calculating the total variable costs for a patient in our cohort vs costs to a theoretical patient for whom angiography was not performed and the pedicle was divided at the 3-week mark. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were included (mean [SD] age, 70.3 [10.0] years; 8 women [36.4%] and 14 men [63.6%]). The selection criteria for 2-week division of the pedicle are a wound bed with at least 50% vascularized tissue present, partial-thickness defects, and absence of nicotine use. All were divided at the 2-week mark with no instances of flap necrosis. One patient had a squamous eccrine carcinoma histology before reconstruction, all other patients had basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. Cost-minimization analysis showed that the use of angiography with ICG results in cost savings of $177 per patient on average. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two-week takedown of select paramedian forehead flap patients can be performed safely with verification using angiography with ICG. Although this technology inherently adds cost, it is cost-effective, saving a total of $177 per patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of microsurgical reconstruction for head and neck defects after oncologic resection.

BACKGROUND: Microvascular free tissue transfer has become the main technique used for head and neck reconstruction. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of free flap reconstruction for head and neck defects after oncologic resection for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: We developed a Markov model of the cost, quality of life, survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness of reconstruction with free tissue transfer compared with locoregional flaps. Health state probabilities and quality of life scores were determined from literature. Costs were determined from institutional experience. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Free flap reconstruction was more costly than pedicled flap but associated with greater quality of life with no survival benefit. A value <$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was defined as cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness for head and neck free flap reconstruction was below the threshold and, therefore, free flap reconstruction is cost-effective. Reconstruction was more cost-effective for patients with lower stage cancers: $4643 per QALY for stage I SCC, $8226 for stage II, $17,269 for stage III, and $23,324 for stage IV. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed the cost-effectiveness would remain <$50,000 for all stages of SCC for all variables except for QALY after locoregional reconstruction without complications. CONCLUSION: Microsurgical head and neck reconstruction is cost-effective compared with locoregional flaps, even more so in patients with early-stage cancer. This finding supports the current practice of free flap head and neck reconstruction. Screening and early detection are important to optimize costs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 541-547, 2017.

[Pilonidal sinus: Secondary wound closure vs. Limberg flap : Cost and satisfaction analysis]. / Sinus pilonidalis: Sekundäre Wundheilung vs. Limberg-Lappenplastik : Eine Zufriedenheits- und Kostenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: After excision of a pilonidal sinus, several treatment options are possible, but no gold standard has been established. A literature review revealed no study comparing the costs and time off work after either secondary wound closure or treatment with a Limberg transposition flap. The aim of this study was to focus on these aspects by analysing the patients treated at the KlinikumStadtSoest. METHOD: Sixty patients with pilonidal sinus after excision were treated either by secondary wound closure or Limberg transposition flap at the KlinikumStadtSoest between 2011 and 2012. The authors analysed retrospectively the patients' demographics, cost, and satisfaction with both techniques and compared them. RESULTS: For secondary wound closure (group 1) 19 out of 31 patients and for Limberg transposition flap (group 2) 21 out of 29 met the inclusion criteria. Time off work following the final surgery (group 1: 69 day vs. group 2: 30 days, p = 0.046) and the number of dressing changes (group 1: 107 times vs. group 2: 16 times, p = 0.000) were significantly lower in the group of Limberg transposition flap (group 2) as well as the associated costs. The surgery-related costs were lower when treated by secondary wound closure. DISCUSSION: Plastic reconstruction with Limberg transposition flap (group 2) provides a chance to reduce the period of incapacity for work due to a shorter treatment period. With that said, patients should nonetheless be offered both techniques as the current literature does not reveal a clear benefit for either procedure.

Free Versus Pedicled TRAM Flaps: Cost Utilization and Complications.

INTRODUCTION: Conventionally, free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (fTRAM) flap breast reconstruction has been associated with decreased donor site morbidity and improved flap inset. However, clinical success depends upon more sophisticated technical expertise and facilities. This study aims to characterize postoperative outcomes undergoing free versus pedicled TRAM (pTRAM) flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: Nationwide inpatient sample database (2008-2011) was reviewed for cases of fTRAM (ICD-9-CM 85.73) and pTRAM (85.72) breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were females undergoing pTRAM or fTRAM breast reconstruction; males were excluded. We examined demographics, hospital setting, insurance information, patient income, and comorbidities. Clinical endpoints included postoperative complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and total charges (TC). Bivariate/multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with increased complications and resource utilization. RESULTS: Overall, 21,655 cases were captured. Seventy-percent were Caucasian, 95 % insured, and 72 % treated in an urban teaching hospital. There were 9 pTRAM and 6 fTRAM in-hospital mortalities. On bivariate analysis, the fTRAM cohort was more likely to be obese (OR 1.2), undergo revision (OR 5.9), require hemorrhage control (OR 5.7), suffer hematoma complications (OR 1.9), or wound infection (OR 1.8) (p < 0.003). The pTRAM cohort was more likely to suffer pneumonia (OR 1.6) and pulmonary embolism (OR 2.0) (p < 0.004). Reconstruction type did not affect risk of flap loss or seroma occurrence. TC were higher with fTRAM (p < 0.001). LOS was not affected by procedure type. On risk-adjusted multivariate analysis, fTRAM was an independent risk factor for increased LOS (OR 1.6), TC (OR 1.8), and postoperative complications (OR 1.3) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Free TRAM has an increased risk of postoperative complications and resource utilization versus pTRAM on the current largest risk-adjusted analysis. Further analyses are required to elucidate additional factors influencing outcomes following these procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 A3 online Instructions to Authors. www.springer.com/00266 .

A prospective randomized cost billing comparison of local fasciocutaneous perforator versus free Gracilis flap reconstruction for lower limb in a developing economy.

UNLABELLED: Distal half leg complex wounds are usually a formidable problem that necessitates either local or free flap coverage. The aim of this study was to compare cost billing charges in free Gracilis flap (fGF) and local fasciocutaneous perforator flap (lFPF) in reconstructing complex soft tissue leg and foot defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive adult (>15-year-old) patients with soft tissue defects in the leg and/or foot requiring tissue coverage with a flap in the period between 2012 and 2015 were randomly assigned (block randomization) to either an fGF or lFPF procedure. The outcome measures addressed were total billed charges costs, perioperative billed charges cost, partial or complete flap loss, length of hospital stay, inpatient postsurgical care duration, complications, operating time and number of operative scrub staff. RESULTS: One patient suffered from complete flap loss in each group. Reconstruction with lFPF showed total lower billed charges costs by 62% (2509 USD) (p < 0.001) and perioperative billed charges cost by 54% (779 USD) (p < 0.001), and shorter total hospital stay (36.5 days; p < 0.001), inpatient postsurgical care duration (6.4 days; p < 0.001), operating time (4.3 h; p < 0.001) and fewer scrub staff (2.2 persons; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that neither flap is totally superior to the other; the choice should instead be based on the outcome sought and logistics. lFPF requires lower billed charges cost and resource use and saves operative time and personnel and reduces length of hospital stay. Our approach changed towards using perforator flaps in medium-sized defects, keeping the free flap option for larger defects.

Swiveling a Single Expanded Forehead Flap: A Novel Effective Economical Approach to Total Bilateral Upper and Lower Eyelid Reconstruction.

In our novel approach, a single expanded forehead flap was used to reconstruct bilateral upper and lower eyelids in orbital trauma. A 40-year-old man sustained blast injury resulting in bilateral orbital exenteration and need for bilateral socket and eyelid reconstruction. The sockets were each resurfaced with a temporalis flap. A subgaleal forehead tissue expander was expanded during several weeks until enough tissue was obtained. The single expanded forehead flap was swiveled in stages to reconstruct both upper and lower eyelids beginning with the left eye then the right. With this method, the authors recreated the bilateral upper and lower eyelids with a single pedicled flap and ensured secure retention of prostheses to give an acceptable appearance. The novel approach of swiveling a single expanded pedicled forehead flap to reconstruct bilateral upper and lower eyelids is easy and effective providing adequate like for like autologous tissue, and economical requiring only 1 donor site.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Breast Reconstruction Options in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy Using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: A consensus is lacking on a uniform reconstructive algorithm for patients with locally advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy. Both delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques have inherent advantages and complications. The study hypothesis is that implants are more cost effective than autologous reconstruction in the setting of postmastectomy radiotherapy because of immediate restoration of the breast mound. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis model using the payer perspective was created comparing delayed autologous and immediate prosthetic techniques against the do-nothing option of mastectomy without reconstruction. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Effectiveness was determined using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure. A breast quality-adjusted life-year value was considered 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both treatments compared with the do-nothing option. RESULTS: BREAST-Q scores were obtained from patients who underwent immediate prosthetic reconstruction (n = 196), delayed autologous reconstruction (n = 76), and mastectomy alone (n = 71). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for immediate prosthetic and delayed autologous reconstruction compared with mastectomy alone were $57,906 and $102,509, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for both treatment options decreased with increasing life expectancy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with advanced breast cancer who require postmastectomy radiotherapy, immediate prosthetic-based breast reconstruction is a cost-effective approach. Despite high complication rates, implant use can be rationalized based on low cost and health-related quality-of-life benefit derived from early breast mound restoration. If greater life expectancy is anticipated, autologous transfer is cost effective as well and may be a superior option.

Bone flap resorption following cranioplasty in a cost-constrained scenario.

Bone flap resorption is an infrequently reported yet significant late complication of autologous bone cranioplasty. It requires serial imaging both to pick up and to monitor progression. Custom-made implants avoid this complication, but are expensive. In a resource-limited situation, when bone flaps placed in the abdomen undergo demineralisation and sutures are used to fix the flap as opposed to plates, where artificial cranial flap substitutes are prohibitively expensive and frequent postoperative imaging may not be feasible, prevention and management of this complication will continue to remain a problem.

A Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing the Sartorius versus the Rectus Femoris Flap in the Treatment of the Infected Vascular Groin Graft Wound.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the sartorius and rectus femoris flaps as reasonable coverage options for the infected vascular groin graft wound. The authors' goal was to perform a cost-utility analysis of the sartorius flap versus the rectus femoris flap in the treatment of an infected vascular groin graft. METHODS: Cost-utility methodology involved a literature review compiling outcomes for specific flap interventions, obtaining utility scores for complications to estimate quality-adjusted life-years, accruing costs using Diagnosis-Related Group and Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention, and developing a decision tree that could portray the more cost-effective strategy. The authors also performed sensitivity analysis to check the robustness of their data. Szilyagi III and Samson III and IV grades of infected groin grafts were included in the study. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were used pooling 296 patients (234 sartorius flaps and 62 rectus flaps). Decision tree analysis noted that the rectus femoris flap was the more cost-effective option. It was the dominant treatment option given that it was more clinically effective by an additional 0.30 quality- adjusted life-years, with the sartorius flap option costing an additional $2241.88. The sartorius flap had a 13.68 percent major complication rate versus an 8.6 percent major complication rate for the rectus femoris flap. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sartorius flap became a cost-effective option if its major complication rate was less than or equal to 8.89 percent. CONCLUSION: The rectus femoris flap in the treatment of the infected vascular groin graft is a cost-effective option compared with the sartorius flap.

The cost effectiveness of the DIEP flap relative to the muscle-sparing TRAM flap in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap has gained notoriety because of its proposed benefit in decreasing donor-site morbidity but has been associated with longer operative times, higher perfusion-related complications, and increased cost relative to muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. The authors performed the first cost-utility analysis examining the cost effectiveness of DIEP flaps relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in women who underwent mastectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the MED- LINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to include studies directly comparing DIEP to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in matched patient cohorts. Eight studies were included, examining 740 DIEP flaps and 807 muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps. Costs were derived adopting both societal and third-party payer perspectives. Utilities were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis. Probabilities of clinically relevant complications were combined with cost and utility estimates to fit into a decision tree analysis. RESULTS: The overall complication rates were 24.7 percent and 21.8 percent for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps, respectively. The authors' baseline analysis using Medicare reimbursement revealed a cost decrease of $69.42 and a clinical benefit of 0.0035 quality-adjusted life-year when performing DIEP flap surgery relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flap surgery, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of -$19,834.29. When using societal costs, the incremental cost-utility ratio increased to $87,800. CONCLUSION: DIEP flaps are cost effective relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps when patients are carefully selected based on perforator anatomy and surgery is performed by experienced surgeons.

An outcome and cost analysis of anal fistula plug insertion vs endorectal advancement flap for complex anal fistulae.

AIM: The study aimed to compare the rate of success and cost of anal fistula plug (AFP) insertion and endorectal advancement flap (ERAF) for anal fistula. METHOD: Patients receiving an AFP or ERAF for a complex single fistula tract, defined as involving more than a third of the longitudinal length of of the anal sphincter, were registered in a prospective database. A regression analysis was performed of factors predicting recurrence and contributing to cost. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients (AFP 31, ERAF 40) were analysed. Twelve (39%) recurrences occurred in the AFP and 17 (43%) in the ERAF group (P = 1.00). The median length of stay was 1.23 and 2.0 days (P < 0.001), respectively, and the mean cost of treatment was €5439 ± €2629 and €7957 ± €5905 (P = 0.021), respectively. On multivariable analysis, postoperative complications, underlying inflammatory bowel disease and fistula recurring after previous treatment were independent predictors of de novo recurrence. It also showed that length of hospital stay ≤ 1 day to be the most significant independent contributor to lower cost (P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Anal fistula plug and ERAF were equally effective in treating fistula-in-ano, but AFP has a mean cost saving of €2518 per procedure compared with ERAF. The higher cost for ERAF is due to a longer median length of stay.