Literature DB >> 8559819

Comparison of resource costs between implant-based and TRAM flap breast reconstruction.

S S Kroll1, G R Evans, G P Reece, M J Miller, G Robb, B J Baldwin, M A Schusterman.   

Abstract

Resource costs, as measured by hours of time in the operating room, days of stay in the hospital, and other costs of care, were evaluated for 240 patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction using either TRAM flaps or breast implants at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. To make costs comparable, only patients who completed reconstruction of the nipple were included. As expected, the initial resource costs of implant-based reconstruction were much lower than those of TRAM flap reconstruction. After correcting for patients whose reconstructions were unsuccessful and including the costs of surgery subsequent to the initial reconstruction, however, the cost advantage of implant-based reconstruction disappeared. If current trends continue, it is likely that with increased follow-up, the long-term resource costs of implant-based reconstructions will continue to increase, while those of autogenous tissue reconstructions will not. Autogenous breast reconstruction with the TRAM flap therefore appears to be more cost-effective, in terms of time as well as dollars, in the long run than reconstruction based on prosthetic implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8559819     DOI: 10.1097/00006534-199602000-00014

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


  8 in total

1.  Breast reconstruction in private practice.

Authors:  Steven M Pisano; Peter R Ledoux; Chet L Nastala
Journal:  Semin Plast Surg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.314

2.  [Quality of life and patient satisfaction after breast reconstruction].

Authors:  N A Papadopulos; L Kovacs; A Baumann; S Ali; P Herschbach; G Henrich; E Biemer
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Breast cancer after augmentation mammoplasty with silicone gel-filled implant: a case report.

Authors:  M Tun; M Madhavan
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  1999-07

Review 4.  Breast reconstruction at the MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Authors:  Peirong Yu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2016-08

Review 5.  Breast reconstruction following prophylactic or therapeutic mastectomy for breast cancer: Recommendations from an evidence-based provincial guideline.

Authors:  Melissa Shea-Budgell; May Lynn Quan; Blair Mehling; Claire Temple-Oberle
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 0.947

6.  Combined Endoscopy-Assisted Muscle-Sparing Latissimus Dorsi Flap Harvesting with Lipofilling Enhancement as a New Volume Replacement Technique in Breast Reconstruction.

Authors:  Yasser S Ahmed; Walid M Abd El Maksoud
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.269

7.  Barriers to breast reconstruction after mastectomy in Nova Scotia.

Authors:  G Philip Barnsley; Leif Sigurdson; Susan Kirkland
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.089

8.  The number of operations required for completing breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Jin Sup Eom; Mark Robert Kobayashi; Keyianoosh Paydar; Garrett A Wirth; Gregory R D Evans
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2014-11-07
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.