PURPOSE: This study evaluates how the transition from pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM) to perforator flaps at an academic center has affected outcome and reimbursement. METHODS: In 2006, our practice transitioned to almost exclusively perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. This study retrospectively compares pTRAM flaps performed from 2002 to 2006 (group 1) with perforator flaps from 2006 to 2010 (group 2). Operative time, complications, and reimbursement were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We performed 93 pTRAM flaps in 69 patients in group 1 and 102 perforator flaps in 69 patients in group 2. Operative time was shorter in group 1 for unilateral breast reconstruction (399 vs. 543 minutes, P = 0.0001), but no significant difference was noted for bilateral cases (547 vs. 658 minutes, P = 0.1). Fat necrosis requiring reoperation (23.7% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.0004) and partial flap necrosis (20.6% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.045) were more frequent in group 1. There was a higher frequency of abdominal hernia (8.8% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.2) but fewer hematomas (1.5% vs. 10%, P = 0.06) in group 1, although statistical significance was not reached between the 2 groups. Mean adjusted payment per case was $3658.67 for group 1 versus $5256.48 for group 2 (P = 0.004), whereas payment per minute was $9.25 for group 1 versus $9.13 for group 2 (P = 0.9). Perforator flaps appear to be as profitable as pTRAM flaps with lower morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from pTRAM to perforator flap can be done successfully with appropriate resources and support. The development of a perforator flap practice represents an opportunity cost in optimizing patient care and should be an option to patients seeking breast reconstruction.
PURPOSE: This study evaluates how the transition from pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM) to perforator flaps at an academic center has affected outcome and reimbursement. METHODS: In 2006, our practice transitioned to almost exclusively perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. This study retrospectively compares pTRAM flaps performed from 2002 to 2006 (group 1) with perforator flaps from 2006 to 2010 (group 2). Operative time, complications, and reimbursement were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We performed 93 pTRAM flaps in 69 patients in group 1 and 102 perforator flaps in 69 patients in group 2. Operative time was shorter in group 1 for unilateral breast reconstruction (399 vs. 543 minutes, P = 0.0001), but no significant difference was noted for bilateral cases (547 vs. 658 minutes, P = 0.1). Fat necrosis requiring reoperation (23.7% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.0004) and partial flap necrosis (20.6% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.045) were more frequent in group 1. There was a higher frequency of abdominal hernia (8.8% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.2) but fewer hematomas (1.5% vs. 10%, P = 0.06) in group 1, although statistical significance was not reached between the 2 groups. Mean adjusted payment per case was $3658.67 for group 1 versus $5256.48 for group 2 (P = 0.004), whereas payment per minute was $9.25 for group 1 versus $9.13 for group 2 (P = 0.9). Perforator flaps appear to be as profitable as pTRAM flaps with lower morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from pTRAM to perforator flap can be done successfully with appropriate resources and support. The development of a perforator flap practice represents an opportunity cost in optimizing patient care and should be an option to patients seeking breast reconstruction.
Authors: Oliver Lotter; William Arthur Townley; Philipp Gonser; Hans-Eberhard Schaller; Sebastian Hoefert Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 2.655