Systematic review of reporting quality of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in healthcare are designed to inform decisions by the estimation of cost and effect trade-off of two or more interventions. This review identified and appraised the quality of reporting of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from January 1, 2012 to November 30, 2019. Data extracted included: the type of economic evaluation (i.e., cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-minimization analysis (CMA)), domain of plastic surgery, journal, year, and country of publication. The CHEERS checklist (with 24 items) was used to appraise the quality of reporting. RESULTS: Ninety-two economic evaluations were identified; CUA (10%), CEA (31%), CBA (4%), and CMA (50%). Breast surgery was the top domain (48%). Most were conducted in the USA (61%) and published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal (28%). One-third were published in the last two years. The average CHEERS checklist compliance score was 15 (63%). The average CHEERS checklist compliance score per type of evaluation was 19 (77%) for CUA, 17 (70%) for CEA, 13 (52%) for CBA, and 14 (57%) for CMA. The least reported CHEERS checklist items included: time horizon (15%), discount rate (18%), and assessment of heterogeneity (15%). Thirty-two percent of studies were inappropriately titled (i.e., methodologically incorrect). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting of economic evaluations is suboptimal. The CHEERS checklist should be consulted when performing and reporting economic evaluations in plastic surgery.

Paravertebral blocks in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains a major challenge following immediate breast reconstruction with 40% of patients experiencing acute pain and up to 60% developing chronic pain. Paravertebral blocks (PVB's) have emerged as a promising adjunct to standard analgesic protocols. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy was performed. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by total oral morphine equivalent usage and self reported pain scores and secondary outcomes were length of stay in the PACU, complications, and OR delay. RESULTS: Of 298 patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction, 112(38%) underwent standard analgesic protocols and 186(62%) underwent PVB in addition to the standard protocol. PVB's were associated with reductions in average postoperative pain scores (2.8 vs 3.3, P = 0.002), total opiate consumption (52 units vs 63 units, P = 0.038) and time spent in the PACU 92 vs 142 minutes, P = 0.0228) compared to patients who had general anesthesia alone. The overall complication rate was 3.7% (7/186 patients), all which were minor complications such as headache, bloody tap, vasovagal episode and temporary weakness. The use of PVBs delayed the OR start time on average by 15 minutes (34 vs 49 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The present study offers one of the largest retrospective cohort studies to date evaluating the utility of PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. We demonstrate that, PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction are associated with reductions in postoperative pain, narcotic usage and length of stay in PACU, but are associated with delays to the start time of the case. Anesthesiologists, plastic surgeons and hospital administrators must continue to work together to ensure this important and necessary service is administered in an efficient and cost effective manner.