Literature DB >> 21587037

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

Catherine de Blacam1, Adeyiza O Momoh, Salih Colakoglu, Sumner A Slavin, Adam M Tobias, Bernard T Lee.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21587037     DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318217fb21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Plast Surg        ISSN: 0148-7043            Impact factor:   1.539


  22 in total

1.  Acellular dermal matrices: Use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery.

Authors:  Sheina A Macadam; Peter A Lennox
Journal:  Can J Plast Surg       Date:  2012

2.  Use of latissimus dorsi muscle onlay patch alternative to acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jeeyeon Lee; Youngtae Bae
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

Review 3.  Current opinions on indications and algorithms for acellular dermal matrix use in primary prosthetic breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael M Vu; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-06

4.  Analysis of perioperative factors associated with increased cost following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

Authors:  John P Fischer; Ari M Wes; Jason D Wink; Jonas A Nelson; Jeff I Rohrbach; Benjamin M Braslow; Stephen J Kovach
Journal:  Hernia       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 4.739

5.  Biological Matrices and Synthetic Meshes Used in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction - a Review of Products Available in Germany.

Authors:  M Dieterich; A Faridi
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.915

Review 6.  Alloplastic adjuncts in breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Miguel S Cabalag; Marie Rostek; George S Miller; Michael P Chae; Tam Quinn; Warren M Rozen; David J Hunter-Smith
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-04

Review 7.  Update in Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Aurelia Trisliana Perdanasari; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Sarth Raj; Sebastian J Winocour; Rene D Largo
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 2.314

8.  Cost analysis of pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Sachin Chinta; Daniel J Koh; Nikhil Sobti; Kathryn Packowski; Nikki Rosado; William Austen; Rachel B Jimenez; Michelle Specht; Eric C Liao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 4.996

9.  Tissue Reinforcement in Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael Scheflan; Amy S Colwell
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-09-08

10.  Is Sterile Better Than Aseptic? Comparing the Microbiology of Acellular Dermal Matrices.

Authors:  Gabriel M Klein; Ahmed E Nasser; Brett T Phillips; Robert P Gersch; Mitchell S Fourman; Sarit E Lilo; Jason R Fritz; Sami U Khan; Alexander B Dagum; Duc T Bui
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2016-06-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.