Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Ritwik Grover, William Padula, Michael Van Vliet, Emily B. Ridgway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND:: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of five standardized procedures for breast reconstruction to delineate the best reconstructive approach in postmastectomy patients in the settings of nonirradiated and irradiated chest walls. METHODS:: A decision tree was used to model five breast reconstruction procedures from the provider perspective to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Procedures included autologous flaps with pedicled tissue, autologous flaps with free tissue, latissimus dorsi flaps with breast implants, expanders with implant exchange, and immediate implant placement. All methods were compared with a "do-nothing" alternative. Data for model parameters were collected through a systematic review, and patient health utilities were calculated from an ad hoc survey of reconstructive surgeons. Results were measured in cost (2011 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate sensitivity analyses and Bayesian multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS:: Pedicled autologous tissue and free autologous tissue reconstruction were cost-effective compared with the do-nothing alternative. Pedicled autologous tissue was the slightly more cost-effective of the two. The other procedures were not found to be cost-effective. The results were robust to a number of sensitivity analyses, although the margin between pedicled and free autologous tissue reconstruction is small and affected by some parameter values. CONCLUSIONS:: Autologous pedicled tissue was slightly more cost-effective than free tissue reconstruction in irradiated and nonirradiated patients. Implant-based techniques were not cost-effective. This is in agreement with the growing trend at academic institutions to encourage autologous tissue reconstruction because of its natural recreation of the breast contour, suppleness, and resiliency in the setting of irradiated recipient beds.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume132
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammaplasty
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Costs and Cost Analysis
Breast Implants
Recreation
Decision Trees
Surgical Flaps
Bayes Theorem
Superficial Back Muscles
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Free Tissue Flaps
Thoracic Wall
Breast
Multivariate Analysis
Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery : A cost-effectiveness analysis. / Grover, Ritwik; Padula, William; Van Vliet, Michael; Ridgway, Emily B.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 132, No. 5, 11.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Grover, Ritwik ; Padula, William ; Van Vliet, Michael ; Ridgway, Emily B. / Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery : A cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 132, No. 5.
@article{a67bcec77233413c90cc1b7440e58050,
title = "Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND:: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of five standardized procedures for breast reconstruction to delineate the best reconstructive approach in postmastectomy patients in the settings of nonirradiated and irradiated chest walls. METHODS:: A decision tree was used to model five breast reconstruction procedures from the provider perspective to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Procedures included autologous flaps with pedicled tissue, autologous flaps with free tissue, latissimus dorsi flaps with breast implants, expanders with implant exchange, and immediate implant placement. All methods were compared with a {"}do-nothing{"} alternative. Data for model parameters were collected through a systematic review, and patient health utilities were calculated from an ad hoc survey of reconstructive surgeons. Results were measured in cost (2011 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate sensitivity analyses and Bayesian multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS:: Pedicled autologous tissue and free autologous tissue reconstruction were cost-effective compared with the do-nothing alternative. Pedicled autologous tissue was the slightly more cost-effective of the two. The other procedures were not found to be cost-effective. The results were robust to a number of sensitivity analyses, although the margin between pedicled and free autologous tissue reconstruction is small and affected by some parameter values. CONCLUSIONS:: Autologous pedicled tissue was slightly more cost-effective than free tissue reconstruction in irradiated and nonirradiated patients. Implant-based techniques were not cost-effective. This is in agreement with the growing trend at academic institutions to encourage autologous tissue reconstruction because of its natural recreation of the breast contour, suppleness, and resiliency in the setting of irradiated recipient beds.",
author = "Ritwik Grover and William Padula and {Van Vliet}, Michael and Ridgway, {Emily B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b10",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "132",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing five alternative methods of breast reconstruction surgery

T2 - A cost-effectiveness analysis

AU - Grover, Ritwik

AU - Padula, William

AU - Van Vliet, Michael

AU - Ridgway, Emily B.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - BACKGROUND:: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of five standardized procedures for breast reconstruction to delineate the best reconstructive approach in postmastectomy patients in the settings of nonirradiated and irradiated chest walls. METHODS:: A decision tree was used to model five breast reconstruction procedures from the provider perspective to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Procedures included autologous flaps with pedicled tissue, autologous flaps with free tissue, latissimus dorsi flaps with breast implants, expanders with implant exchange, and immediate implant placement. All methods were compared with a "do-nothing" alternative. Data for model parameters were collected through a systematic review, and patient health utilities were calculated from an ad hoc survey of reconstructive surgeons. Results were measured in cost (2011 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate sensitivity analyses and Bayesian multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS:: Pedicled autologous tissue and free autologous tissue reconstruction were cost-effective compared with the do-nothing alternative. Pedicled autologous tissue was the slightly more cost-effective of the two. The other procedures were not found to be cost-effective. The results were robust to a number of sensitivity analyses, although the margin between pedicled and free autologous tissue reconstruction is small and affected by some parameter values. CONCLUSIONS:: Autologous pedicled tissue was slightly more cost-effective than free tissue reconstruction in irradiated and nonirradiated patients. Implant-based techniques were not cost-effective. This is in agreement with the growing trend at academic institutions to encourage autologous tissue reconstruction because of its natural recreation of the breast contour, suppleness, and resiliency in the setting of irradiated recipient beds.

AB - BACKGROUND:: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of five standardized procedures for breast reconstruction to delineate the best reconstructive approach in postmastectomy patients in the settings of nonirradiated and irradiated chest walls. METHODS:: A decision tree was used to model five breast reconstruction procedures from the provider perspective to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Procedures included autologous flaps with pedicled tissue, autologous flaps with free tissue, latissimus dorsi flaps with breast implants, expanders with implant exchange, and immediate implant placement. All methods were compared with a "do-nothing" alternative. Data for model parameters were collected through a systematic review, and patient health utilities were calculated from an ad hoc survey of reconstructive surgeons. Results were measured in cost (2011 U.S. dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate sensitivity analyses and Bayesian multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS:: Pedicled autologous tissue and free autologous tissue reconstruction were cost-effective compared with the do-nothing alternative. Pedicled autologous tissue was the slightly more cost-effective of the two. The other procedures were not found to be cost-effective. The results were robust to a number of sensitivity analyses, although the margin between pedicled and free autologous tissue reconstruction is small and affected by some parameter values. CONCLUSIONS:: Autologous pedicled tissue was slightly more cost-effective than free tissue reconstruction in irradiated and nonirradiated patients. Implant-based techniques were not cost-effective. This is in agreement with the growing trend at academic institutions to encourage autologous tissue reconstruction because of its natural recreation of the breast contour, suppleness, and resiliency in the setting of irradiated recipient beds.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887291258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887291258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b10

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b10

M3 - Article

C2 - 24165623

AN - SCOPUS:84887291258

VL - 132

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 5

ER -