Literature DB >> 21112263

The economic viability of breast reconstruction in the UK: comparison of a single surgeon's experience of implant; LD; TRAM and DIEP based reconstructions in 274 patients.

D D Atherton1, A J Hills, P Moradi, N Muirhead, S H Wood.   

Abstract

A retrospective audit was performed of patients undergoing breast reconstruction under the care of the senior author from 2000 to 2007. We documented reconstruction type, length of stay and total number of revisions. Income to the trust based on the 2008/9 HRG codes along with any "top ups" was also recorded. This was compared to calculations of cost to the trust of performing each reconstruction. 274 patients had 278 primary reconstructions and a further 366 revisions. Only patients with a minimum one-year's follow-up were included (mean 3 years). This included 68 DIEPs'; 39 TRAMs'; 98 LDs'; and 73 implant reconstructions. The median length of stay for implant based reconstruction was 4 days; 9 for LD flaps; 11 for TRAMs' and 8 for DIEPs'. This was significantly shorter for the implant group compared to other reconstructions (P<0.001). The mean number of surgical revisions was 1.5 for implant reconstructions; 1.6 for LDs; 0.9 for TRAMs' and 0.8 for DIEPs'. There were significantly more revisions of implant reconstructions than DIEPs (P=0.037) and significantly more revisions of LDs compared to TRAM and DIEPs' (P=0.012 and 0.0023). In our study, the cost of an LD, TRAM or DIEP reconstruction including both primary surgery and any revisions was similar, and while at an average of three years, the implant reconstruction remains cheaper, that patient will still require more revisions, and if followed up enough will lose this small financial benefit. Furthermore, the difference is small (£8034 for implants vs. £10910 for DIEPs), and it could be argued this is justified by the increased patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome. Finally we highlight several areas of financial inequality, including insufficient remuneration for providing individual operations, the lack of payment for performing more than one procedure at the same time and lack of payment for bilateral procedures.
Copyright © 2010 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21112263     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  15 in total

1.  Breast Microsurgery in Plastic Surgery Literature: A 21-Year Analysis of Publication Trends.

Authors:  Lauren Tracy Daly; Donald Mowlds; Merrick A Brodsky; Michael Abrouk; Jessica R Gandy; Garrett A Wirth
Journal:  J Reconstr Microsurg       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 2.873

Review 2.  A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Complications Related to Breast Reconstruction Using Different Skin Flaps After Breast Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Jiahua Xing; Ziqi Jia; Yichi Xu; Muzi Chen; Youbai Chen; Yan Han
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 2.708

3.  Use of Single-recipient Vessels for Cross-chest Abdominal Flap-based Breast Augmentation as an Outpatient.

Authors:  Paul Deramo; Carlos A Martinez; Sean G Boutros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-07-15

4.  The gracilis myocutaneous free flap: a quantitative analysis of the fasciocutaneous blood supply and implications for autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Iain S Whitaker; Maria Karavias; Ramin Shayan; Cara Michelle le Roux; Warren M Rozen; Russell J Corlett; G Ian Taylor; Mark W Ashton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap versus implants for breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Ankur Khajuria; Oliver J Smith; Maxim Prokopenko; Maximillian Greenfield; Afshin Mosahebi
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-22

6.  Does surgical procedure type impact postoperative pain and recovery in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction?

Authors:  Alexander A Azizi; Anita T Mohan; Taj Tomouk; Elizabeth B Brickley; Charles M Malata
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2020-07-15

Review 7.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Microsurgical Safety and Efficacy of Profunda Artery Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Bei Qian; Lingyun Xiong; Jialun Li; Yang Sun; Jiaming Sun; Nengqiang Guo; Zhenxing Wang
Journal:  J Oncol       Date:  2019-07-29       Impact factor: 4.375

8.  A Meta-analysis of Clinical, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cost of DIEP versus Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Ankur Khajuria; Max Prokopenko; Max Greenfield; Oliver Smith; Andrea L Pusic; Afshin Mosahebi
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2019-10-28

9.  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

10.  The Outpatient DIEP: Safety and Viability following a Modified Recovery Protocol.

Authors:  Carlos A Martinez; Scott M Reis; Rukmini Rednam; Sean G Boutros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-09-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.