Literature DB >> 25517411

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q.

Evan Matros1, Claudia R Albornoz, Shantanu N Razdan, Babak J Mehrara, Sheina A Macadam, Teresa Ro, Colleen M McCarthy, Joseph J Disa, Peter G Cordeiro, Andrea L Pusic.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement has been recognized as a physician barrier to autologous reconstruction. Autologous reconstructions are more expensive than prosthetic reconstructions, but provide greater health-related quality of life. The authors' hypothesis is that autologous tissue reconstructions are cost-effective compared with prosthetic techniques when considering health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction.
METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the payer perspective, including patient input, was performed for unilateral and bilateral reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and implants. The effectiveness measure was derived using the BREAST-Q and interpreted as the cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was generated. A sensitivity analysis for age and stage at diagnosis was performed.
RESULTS: BREAST-Q scores from 309 patients with implants and 217 DIEP flap reconstructions were included. The additional cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast-related health for a unilateral DIEP flap compared with implant reconstruction was $11,941. For bilateral DIEP flaps compared with implant reconstructions, the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year was $28,017. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year for DIEP flaps compared with implants was less for younger patients and earlier stage breast cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: DIEP flaps are cost-effective compared with implants, especially for unilateral reconstructions. Cost-effectiveness of autologous techniques is maximized in women with longer life expectancy. Patient-reported outcomes findings can be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses to demonstrate the relative value of reconstructive procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25517411     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001134

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


  22 in total

1.  Elective Revisions after Breast Reconstruction: Results from the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Sophocles H Voineskos; Ji Qi; Hyungjin M Kim; Jennifer B Hamill; Edwin G Wilkins; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 2.  Complications and thromboembolic events associated with tamoxifen therapy in patients with breast cancer undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rajiv P Parikh; Elizabeth B Odom; Liyang Yu; Graham A Colditz; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Preoperative Paravertebral Block Improves Postoperative Pain Control and Reduces Hospital Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Autologous Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Rajiv P Parikh; Ketan Sharma; Ryan Guffey; Terence M Myckatyn
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Conceptual Considerations for Payment Bundling in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Clifford C Sheckter; Shantanu N Razdan; Joseph J Disa; Babak J Mehrara; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 5.  Long term effects of modern breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Abhishek Chatterjee
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-08

6.  The Impact of Obesity on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Jonas A Nelson; Nikhil Sobti; Aadit Patel; Evan Matros; Colleen M McCarthy; Joseph H Dayan; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; Robert J Allen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Successful Salvage of Delayed Venous Congestion After DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Kristopher Katira; Samita Goyal; Chelsea Venditto; John A LoGiudice; Erin L Doren
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2019-12-03

8.  A Cross-Sectional Study of Variations in Reimbursement for Breast Reconstruction: Is A Healthcare Disparity On the Horizon?

Authors:  Elizabeth B Odom; Alexandra C Schmidt; Terence M Myckatyn; Donald W Buck
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.539

9.  Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

Authors:  Hina Panchal; Meghana G Shamsunder; Avraham Sheinin; Clifford C Sheckter; Nicholas L Berlin; Jonas A Nelson; Robert Allen; David Rubin; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.169

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.