Literature DB >> 25180959

Evolving Trends in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Is the Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Taking Over?

Irene Pien1, Sophia Caccavale, Michael C Cheung, Parag Butala, Duncan B Hughes, Cassandra Ligh, Michael R Zenn, Scott T Hollenbeck.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm for the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap for autologous breast reconstruction has grown in recent years. However, this flap is not performed at all centers or by all plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction, and it is unclear whether practice patterns have measurably changed. This study aimed to (1) evaluate changing trends in breast flap use in the United States in recent years and (2) identify how these trends have affected charges and costs associated with autologous breast reconstruction.
METHODS: Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction [latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicled transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), and DIEP] were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2009-2011). A total of 19,182 hospital discharges were reviewed. Patient demographics, hospital teaching center status, payer status, length of stay, total charges, and total costs per discharge were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression, t test, and analysis of variance models.
RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2011, the total number of discharges did not change significantly. Patient age distribution was similar for all flap groups. For individual flaps, there was a significant increase in DIEP flaps (P = 0.03), with a decreasing trend for other abdominal-based flaps. The patients receiving DIEP flap breast reconstruction were covered by private insurance at a higher rate than all other flap procedures (P = 0.03), whereas other potential cost determinants did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean charge per flap was $40,704 for LD, $51,933 for pTRAM, $69,909 for fTRAM, and $82,320 for DIEP. The mean cost per flap was $12,017 for LD, $15,538 for pTRAM, $20,756 for fTRAM, and $23,616 for DIEP.
CONCLUSIONS: Between 2009 and 2011, the total amount of autologous breast reconstruction discharges was relatively stable, but the number of DIEP flaps increased significantly. Review of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data shows that, compared with LD, pTRAM, and fTRAM flaps, the DIEP flap is associated with higher charges and costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25180959     DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000339

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


  10 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

2.  Lengthening the pedicle of the rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap for repair of upper chest and neck defects.

Authors:  J Q Zhang; J M Zhang; W Q Liang; C Y Ji; Y H Chen
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 1.891

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.  Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Abdominally Based Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

Authors:  Jessica Erdmann-Sager; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic; Ji Qi; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Gretchen E Guldbrandsen; Yoon S Chun
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Safety of long-term subcutaneous free flap skin banking after skin-sparing mastectomy.

Authors:  Ralph Verstappen; Gabriel Djedovic; Evi Maria Morandi; Dietmar Heiser; Ulrich Michael Rieger; Thomas Bauer
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2018-03-05

7.  The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-Day Challenge: Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Reporting Reliability.

Authors:  Austin D Chen; Parisa Kamali; Anmol S Chattha; Alexandra Bucknor; Justin B Cohen; Patrick P Bletsis; Renata Flecha-Hirsch; Adam M Tobias; Bernard T Lee; Samuel J Lin
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2018-03-06

Review 8.  Adipose-Derived Stem Cells in Novel Approaches to Breast Reconstruction: Their Suitability for Tissue Engineering and Oncological Safety.

Authors:  Niamh O'Halloran; Donald Courtney; Michael J Kerin; Aoife J Lowery
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2017-08-16

9.  Breast Reconstruction in Obese Patients: The Fat Grafted Latissimus versus Abdominal Free Tissue Transfer.

Authors:  Matthew D Novak; Jordan T Blough; Jasson T Abraham; Hope D Shin; Tai Yasuda; Donna Ayala; Andrew M Altman; Michel Saint-Cyr
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-03-20

10.  Teaching Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Sebastian Fischer; Yannick F Diehm; Dimitra Kotsougiani-Fischer; Emre Gazyakan; Christian A Radu; Thomas Kremer; Christoph Hirche; Ulrich Kneser
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.