Aaisha Fatima1, Trevor G Hackman1, Jeyhan S Wood1. 1. From the Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, and the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the complex nature of osteocutaneous free flap mandibular reconstruction, modern technologies such as virtual surgical planning have become popularized to refine the procedure. Compared with usual care, virtual surgical planning has been suggested to reduce operative time and improve accuracy of outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of virtual surgical planning versus usual care in mandibular reconstruction. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to comparatively understand cost-effectiveness of virtual surgical planning and usual care treatments based on additional costs of virtual surgical planning, and costs attributed to probabilities of postoperative complications. Model structure was informed through qualitative clinical interviews from the University of North Carolina, and supported through University of North Carolina clinical data and literature. Costs and complication probabilities were estimated from the literature. Sensitivity analyses of all uncertain model parameters were performed, and distributional parameters were selected based on best practices. RESULTS: Results of base-case analysis indicated that virtual surgical planning was more costly by a difference of $7099 per person and did not reduce the risk of complications or flap loss. Virtual surgical planning cases had an increased incidence of flap loss by 0.6 percent and an increased incidence of mandibular infection by 6.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning has upfront expenses that do not necessarily translate into downstream reduction in complications or improved outcomes. Clinical decision-makers would benefit from future research to identify thresholds whereby virtual surgical planning may result in more cost-savings for particular types of patients.
BACKGROUND: Because of the complex nature of osteocutaneous free flap mandibular reconstruction, modern technologies such as virtual surgical planning have become popularized to refine the procedure. Compared with usual care, virtual surgical planning has been suggested to reduce operative time and improve accuracy of outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of virtual surgical planning versus usual care in mandibular reconstruction. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was constructed to comparatively understand cost-effectiveness of virtual surgical planning and usual care treatments based on additional costs of virtual surgical planning, and costs attributed to probabilities of postoperative complications. Model structure was informed through qualitative clinical interviews from the University of North Carolina, and supported through University of North Carolina clinical data and literature. Costs and complication probabilities were estimated from the literature. Sensitivity analyses of all uncertain model parameters were performed, and distributional parameters were selected based on best practices. RESULTS: Results of base-case analysis indicated that virtual surgical planning was more costly by a difference of $7099 per person and did not reduce the risk of complications or flap loss. Virtual surgical planning cases had an increased incidence of flap loss by 0.6 percent and an increased incidence of mandibular infection by 6.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual surgical planning has upfront expenses that do not necessarily translate into downstream reduction in complications or improved outcomes. Clinical decision-makers would benefit from future research to identify thresholds whereby virtual surgical planning may result in more cost-savings for particular types of patients.
Authors: Paige L Myers; Jonas A Nelson; Evan B Rosen; Robert J Allen; Joseph J Disa; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-09-17
Authors: Lucas M Ritschl; Paul Kilbertus; Florian D Grill; Matthias Schwarz; Jochen Weitz; Markus Nieberler; Klaus-Dietrich Wolff; Andreas M Fichter Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hongyang Ma; Sohaib Shujaat; Jeroen Van Dessel; Yi Sun; Michel Bila; Jan Vranckx; Constantinus Politis; Reinhilde Jacobs Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 6.244