Literature DB >> 10724253

Cost-based comparison between perforator flaps and TRAM flaps for breast reconstruction.

J L Kaplan1, R J Allen.   

Abstract

More women than ever before are undergoing mastectomies secondary to increased awareness and screening. This increase has also caused a corresponding increase in the number of breast reconstructions requested each year. The increased demand for reconstruction has fueled recent advances in new techniques. Aside from foreign-body reconstruction such as implants, the methods now being used are related to autogenous donations and reconstruction. Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps and perforator flaps are currently being used for autogenous breast reconstruction. This study will compare these two techniques on the basis of cost and length of stay. A retrospective study of 49 patients undergoing a total of 64 perforator flap breast reconstructions at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, during the 1997 calendar year was used. There were 59 deep inferior epigastric perforator and five gluteal artery perforator breast reconstructions. All patients underwent some form of breast reconstruction and differed only in respect to whether a mastectomy was performed and whether the reconstruction was unilateral or bilateral. Those patients who underwent a mastectomy with immediate perforator flap reconstruction (n = 26) were then compared with patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate TRAM flap reconstruction (n = 154) at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. The data from the Anderson Study were obtained from material published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 1996. Comparison of patients was limited to those who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction because this was the design of the M. D. Anderson study. This approach allowed a cost and length of stay comparison while keeping other variables relatively similar. Patients in the perforator flap series enjoyed a marginally shorter operating time and a much shorter length of stay. On average, the operative time for all perforator flap reconstructions was approximately 2 hours shorter than for all TRAM flaps. As for length of stay, perforator flap patients were discharged, on average, 3 days after the initial reconstruction. In contrast, TRAM flap patients remained in the hospital for an average of approximately 7 days after the initial reconstruction. The overall total, average cost for the perforator flap reconstruction in this study is $9625, whereas the average cost of all TRAM flaps performed in the Anderson study is $18,070.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10724253     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200003000-00017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  11 in total

1.  Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.

Authors:  Sheina A Macadam; Toni Zhong; Katie Weichman; Michael Papsdorf; Peter A Lennox; Alexes Hazen; Evan Matros; Joseph Disa; Babak Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Deep inferior epigastric artery perforated rectus abdominis free flap for head and neck reconstruction.

Authors:  Johnny Cappiello; Cesare Piazza; Valentina Taglietti; Piero Nicolai
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  Abdominal perforator vs. muscle sparing flaps for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Paris D Butler; Liza C Wu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

4.  Impact of insurance payer and socioeconomic status on type of autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jacob Dinis; Alexandra Junn; Fouad Chouairi; Michael Mercier; Tomer Avraham; Evan Matros; Michael Alperovich
Journal:  Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.388

5.  Breast Reconstruction with Perforator Flaps in Poland Syndrome: Report of a Two-Stage Strategy and Literature Review.

Authors:  Boyang Xu; Tong Liu; Chunjun Liu
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 6.  Autologous Breast Reconstruction with Transverse Rectus Abdominis Musculocutaneous (TRAM) or Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) Flaps: An Analysis of the 100 Most Cited Articles.

Authors:  Aijia Cai; Jan Suckau; Andreas Arkudas; Justus P Beier; Arash Momeni; Raymund E Horch
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-05-12

7.  A single center prospective study of bilateral breast reconstruction with free abdominal flaps: a critical analyses of 144 patients.

Authors:  Christoph Andree; Stefan Langer; Katrin Seidenstuecker; Philipp Richrath; Philipp Behrendt; Tobias Koeppe; Mazen Hagouan; Christan Witzel; Samma Al Benna; Beatrix Munder
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2013-06-17

8.  The deep inferior epigastric perforator and pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in breast reconstruction: a comparative study.

Authors:  Shane Tan; Jane Lim; Jacklyn Yek; Wei Chen Ong; Chor Hoong Hing; Thiam Chye Lim
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2013-05-16

9.  DIEP flap salvage by cannula venesection of the superficial inferior epigastric vein.

Authors:  Puttan Wongtriratanachai; Abbe Michelle Martin; Kongkrit Chaiyasate
Journal:  Eur J Plast Surg       Date:  2016-01-15

10.  Measuring skin necrosis in a randomised controlled feasibility trial of heat preconditioning on wound healing after reconstructive breast surgery: study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREHEAT trial.

Authors:  Suzie Cro; Saahil Mehta; Jian Farhadi; Billie Coomber; Victoria Cornelius
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2018-01-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.