An international comparison of reimbursement for DIEAP flap breast reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: The deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEAP) flap is currently considered the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction. With the current economic climate and health cutbacks, we decided to survey reimbursement for DIEAP flaps performed at the main international centres in order to assess whether they are funded consistently. METHODS: Data were collected confidentially from the main international centres by an anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Our results illustrate the wide disparity in international DIEAP flap breast reconstruction reimbursement: a unilateral DIEAP flap performed in New York, USA, attracts €20,759, whereas the same operation in Madrid, Spain, will only be reimbursed for €300. Only 35.7% of the surgeons can set up their own fee. Moreover, 85.7% of the participants estimated that the current fees are insufficient, and most of them feel that we are evolving towards an even lower reimbursement rate. In 55.8% of the countries represented, there is no DIEAP-specific coding; in comparison, 74.4% of the represented countries have a specific coding for transverse rectus abdominis (TRAM) flaps. Finally, despite the fact that DIEAP flaps have become the gold standard for breast reconstruction, they comprise only a small percentage of all the total number of breast reconstruction procedures performed (7-15%), with the only exception being Belgium (40%). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that DIEAP flap breast reconstruction is inconsistently funded. Unfortunately though, it appears that the current reimbursement offered by many countries may dissuade institutions and surgeons from offering this procedure. However, substantial evidence exists supporting the cost-effectiveness of perforator flaps for breast reconstruction, and, in our opinion, the long-term clinical benefits for our patients are so important that this investment of time and money is absolutely essential.

Prognostic scoring systems in burns: a review.

Survival after burn has steadily improved over the last few decades. Patient mortality is, however, still the primary outcome measure for burn care. Scoring systems aim to use the most predictive premorbid and injury factors to yield an expected likelihood of death for a given patient. Age, burn surface area and inhalational injury remain the mainstays of burn prognostication, but their relative weighting varies between scoring systems. Biochemical markers may hold the key to predicting outcomes in burns. Alternatively, the incorporation of global scales such as those used in the general intensive care unit may have relevance in burn patients. Outcomes other than mortality are increasingly relevant, especially as mortality after burns continues to improve. The evolution of prognostic scoring in burns is reviewed with specific reference to the more widely regarded measures. Alternative approaches to burn prognostication are reviewed along with evidence for the use of outcomes other than mortality. The purpose and utility of prognostic scoring in general is discussed with relevance to its potential uses in audit, research and at the bedside.

The use of the Cortrak Enteral Access System™ for post-pyloric (PP) feeding tube placement in a Burns Intensive Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: 50% of critically ill patients fail to reach caloric targets with NG feeding. PP feeding may enhance caloric intake. PP feeding can be continued throughout theatre in patients with a secure airway. Blind PP tube placement is difficult. CEAS has been developed to assist tube placement and eliminate check X-rays of tube position. METHOD: All BITU patients with CEAS PP feeding tube placement were identified. Notes and X-rays were reviewed. Tube position, calorie deficit and time off feed were recorded. RESULTS: 44 tubes were placed in 21 patients using CEAS. 84% were PP, 16% NG. Position correlated to X-ray findings in 86%. In 16% position was NG on CEAS but was PP on X-ray. 10 patients required both CXR and AXR to confirm position, the remainder required CXR only. Time off feed varied from 0-24 h (mean 7.4 h). Calorie deficit ranged from 0-2465 kCal (mean 858 kCal). Average wait for X-ray was 3.4h. If X-ray wait was eliminated calorie deficit would be reduced by 45% to 393 kCal. CONCLUSION: The Cortrak system is safe and effective on BITU. It reduces calorie deficit, reduces X-ray exposure and is cost effective. We recommend its use on BITU.