The value of microvascular breast reconstruction: Cost equivalence of TRAM and DIEP flaps implications in the era of CMS reforms.

BACKGROUND: Recent CMS billing changes have raised concerns about insurance coverage for deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. This study compared the costs and utilization of transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), DIEP, and latissimus dorsi (LD) flaps in breast reconstruction. METHOD: The study utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to identify female patients who underwent DIEP, TRAM, and LD flap procedures from 2016 to 2019. Key data such as patient demographics, length of stay, complications, and costs (adjusted to 2021 USD) were analyzed, focusing on differences across the flap types. RESULTS: A total of 17,770 weighted patient encounters were identified, with the median age being 51. The majority underwent DIEP flaps (73.5%), followed by TRAM (14.2%) and LD (12.1%) flaps. The findings revealed that DIEP and TRAM flaps had a similar length of stay (LOS), while LD flaps typically had a shorter LOS. The total hospital charges to costs using cost-to-charge ratio were also comparable between DIEP and TRAM flaps, whereas LD flaps were significantly less expensive. Factors such as income quartile, primary payer of hospitalization, and geographic region significantly influenced flap choice. CONCLUSION: The study's results appear to contradict the prevailing notion that TRAM flaps are more cost-effective than DIEP flaps. The total hospital charges to costs using cost-to-charge ratio and hospital stays associated with TRAM and DIEP flaps were found to be similar. These findings suggest that changes in the insurance landscape, which may limit the use of DIEP flaps, could undermine patient autonomy while not necessarily reducing healthcare costs. Such policy shifts could favor less costly options like the LD flap, potentially altering the landscape of microvascular breast reconstruction.

Impact of insurance payer and socioeconomic status on type of autologous breast reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Autologous breast reconstruction has evolved from more morbid procedures that sacrificed the abdominal muscle (the TRAM or transverse rectus abdominus muscle flap) to "perforator" flaps. Commercial insurers recognized the higher technical demand of perforator flaps by creating procedural codes with higher professional fees. This study examined whether procedure code discrepancies between insurance payers disproportionally incentivize perforator flaps among the commercially insured. METHODS: Autologous breast reconstructions identified from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were subdivided into microvascular perforator (85.74, 85.75, 85.76), microvascular TRAM (85.73), and pedicled TRAM flaps (85.72). Demographics, comorbidities and access to care were compared. A logistic regression comparing microvascular reconstructions only was used to identify predictors for perforator flap reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 66,968 cases of autologous breast reconstruction were identified. Perforator flaps were more likely among the commercially insured (p < 0.001) and higher insurance quartiles (p < 0.001).When comparing microvascular reconstruction, perforator flaps were 1.72 (p < 0.001) times more likely among the commercially insured. As compared to the lowest income quartile, the fourth quartile had an odds ratio of 1.36 (p < 0.001) for perforator flap reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The presence of a separate perforator flap billing code among the commercially insured may be exacerbating existing socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer reconstruction.

A structured pathway for accelerated postoperative recovery reduces hospital stay and cost of care following microvascular breast reconstruction without increased complications.

INTRODUCTION: Accelerated recovery protocols have proved effective in many surgical procedures but are infrequently applied in breast reconstruction. In this study, we evaluate the impact of a structured pathway for accelerated postoperative recovery in patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction at a high-volume center. METHODS: We describe our care pathway for patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction at our center. We compared length of stay (LOS), complication rates, readmission rates, and cost of inpatient care before (pre-protocol (Pre-P)) and after (post-protocol (Post-P)) the implementation of the protocol. RESULTS: Patients in the Post-P group (n = 198) had a significant reduction in mean LOS as compared to those in the Pre-P (n = 183) group (3.6 +/- 0.85 vs. 4.7 +/-1.04 days, p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in the rates of major (Pre-P 16.9% vs. Post-P 14.7%, p = 0.71) or minor (Pre-P 21.3% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.22) postoperative complications between groups. The readmission rates were also similar (Pre-P 6.5% vs. Post-P 4.5, p = 0.69). Implementation of the protocol resulted in a significant reduction in the mean cost of in-patient care. CONCLUSION: A simple protocol for accelerated and streamlined postoperative recovery effectively reduces LOS and patient care costs following DIEP flap breast reconstruction without compromising patient safety.

The Price of Aesthetics After Nipple-Sparring Mastectomy: A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Skin Banking With Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap.

BACKGROUND: Skin necrosis after nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) breast reconstruction impacts cosmesis and patient satisfaction. Skin grafting might mitigate these sequelae, but oftentimes creates a color and texture mismatch with native breast skin. In contrast, abdominal skin on the DIEP flap is an excellent match and can be banked. The purposes of this study are to review our experience with skin banking of DIEP flaps and determine the cost-benefit of skin banking compared with other reconstructive options. METHODS: This was a retrospective review study conducted from 2011 to 2014 to examine patients undergoing staged DIEP reconstruction immediately after NSM. Medicare reimbursement costs using Current Procedural Terminology codes, and provider and facilities fees for conventional reconstructions options versus skin banking were obtained with subsequent cost-minimization and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who developed mastectomy skin necrosis was 12.1%, and that of those who had a positive retroareolar biopsy corresponding to an average surface area of 58.3 cm was 3.0%. Average per patient cost of skin banking was $1224, $844 more than split-thickness skin graft (STSG) without Integra, $420 more than STSG with Integra, and $839.01 more than full-thickness skin graft. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that skin banking was less than managing mastectomy skin loss with STSG and Integra when the incidence of necrosis >10 cm exceeded 25.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Skin banking maximizes aesthetic outcomes after skin loss from either positive margins or skin flap necrosis. Use of this technique should occur especially in select patients at increased risk of mastectomy skin flap/nipple-areola complex (NAC) necrosis and/or suspicion for occult NAC carcinoma. Furthermore, among reconstructive plastic surgeons whose rate of mastectomy flap/NAC necrosis >10 cm exceeds 25.3%, sensitive analysis favors undergoing a staged reconstruction after NSM.

Check the Record: Remote CT Scans for Breast Flap Perforator Mapping.

BACKGROUND: Perforator mapping with computed tomography angiography (CTA) prior to autologous breast reconstruction reduces donor-site morbidity and operative time, but is costly. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether pre-existing CT scans could be used for dominant perforator identification before autologous reconstruction. METHODS: We identified all female patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate or delayed breast reconstruction with abdominal free flaps at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. Medical records were reviewed to identify patients with pre-existing CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis. CT images were reviewed by the senior surgeon and ranked on a 1 to 3 scale to indicate utility for preoperative planning. An analysis was performed to assess financial savings and radiation avoidance associated with the use of pre-existing scans. RESULTS: Of 301 identified patients, 44.9% (n = 135) had an available pre-existing CT. A dominant perforator was identified on 92.6% of scans. A higher proportion of dominant perforators was identified using positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans compared with CT scans with intravenous (IV) contrast and noncontrast CTs (p < 0.0001). Compared with PET/CTs and CTs with IV contrast, the average utility score for noncontrast CTs was lower (p = 0.0001). Dominant perforators were clearly identified in patients who had both a remote CT scan and a preoperative CTA. Perforator mapping using remote CT scans yielded a projected radiation reduction of 13.2 mGy per patient and yielded a projected annual U.S. health care savings of $28,459,638. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that pre-existing CT scans represent a viable and economical alternative for perforator mapping before abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap versus implants for breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy in the context of breast malignancy can have a profoundly negative impact on a woman's self-image, impairing personal, sexual and social relationships. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and implants are the two commonest reconstructive modalities that can potentially overcome this psychological trauma. The comparative data on clinical outcomes and costs of the two modalities is limited. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on DIEP versus implants to establish which is the superior technique for breast reconstruction, in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A comprehensive search will be undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and Science citation index databases (1994 up to August 2017) to identify studies relevant for the review. Primary human studies evaluating clinical outcomes and cost of DIEP and implant-based reconstruction in context of breast malignancy will be included. Primary outcomes will be patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome from patient-reported outcome measures (scores from validated tools, e.g. BREAST-Q tool), complications and cost-analysis. The secondary outcomes will be duration of surgery, number of surgical revisions, length of stay, availability of procedures and total number of clinic visits. DISCUSSION: This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis in available literature comparing the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of DIEP and implants for breast reconstruction. This review is expected to guide worldwide clinical practice for breast reconstruction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072557 .

The merits of decision modelling in the earliest stages of the IDEAL framework: An innovative case in DIEP flap breast reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: The IDEAL framework aims at improving the evidence base of available surgical innovations. However, the development of such innovations and collection of evidence is costly. Surgical innovation can provide more value for money if innovations are evaluated at an early stage, where evaluations can inform the decision whether to stop or to further develop an innovation. We illustrate how decision modelling can be readily adopted at the earliest stages (0-1) of the IDEAL framework, using an innovation in bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction as an example. METHODS: We quantified expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of the current treatment and compared them with an innovation aimed at reducing complications and surgery time. The maximum effect of eliminating all complications (headroom analysis) was explored. Moreover, three scenarios with varying complications and surgery time reductions were modelled. Furthermore, the maximum price of the innovation was estimated in a threshold analysis according to its impact and societal willingness to pay. RESULTS: The headroom analysis showed that when all complications associated with the current treatment are prevented, up to €889 per patient is saved. Scenario analysis showed cost savings between €256 and €828 per patient. When surgery time is reduced by 15 min and complications by 50%, the innovation will remain cost-effective at €671 per patient. CONCLUSION: In a field struggling with cost containment, decision modelling can help to separate promising innovations from costly failures at an early stage. In this example, decision modelling showed that it seems worthwhile to further develop the innovation.

Cost analysis of postmastectomy reconstruction: A comparison of two staged implant reconstruction using tissue expander and acellular dermal matrix with abdominal-based perforator free flaps.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two staged tissue expander-implant with acellular dermal matrix (TE/I + ADM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap are the most common implant and autologous methods of reconstruction in the U.S. Implant-based techniques are disproportionally more popular, partially due to its presumed cost effectiveness. We performed a comprehensive cost analysis to compare TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap. METHODS: A comparative cost analysis of TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap was performed. Medicare reimbursement costs for each procedure and their associated complications were calculated. Pooled probabilities of complications including cellulitis, seroma, skin necrosis, implant removal, flap loss, partial flap loss, and fat necrosis, were calculated using published studies from 2010 to 2016. RESULTS: Average actual cost for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $13 304.55 and $10 237.13, respectively. Incorporating pooled complication data from published literature resulted in an increase in cost to $13 963.46 for TE/I + ADM and $12 624.29 for DIEP flap. The expected costs for successful TE/I + ADM and DIEP flap were $9700.35 and $8644.23, which are lower than the actual costs. CONCLUSIONS: DIEP flap breast reconstruction incurs lower costs compared to TE/I + ADM. These costs are lower at baseline and when additional costs from pooled complications are incorporated.

Evolving Trends in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: Is the Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Taking Over?

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm for the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap for autologous breast reconstruction has grown in recent years. However, this flap is not performed at all centers or by all plastic surgeons for breast reconstruction, and it is unclear whether practice patterns have measurably changed. This study aimed to (1) evaluate changing trends in breast flap use in the United States in recent years and (2) identify how these trends have affected charges and costs associated with autologous breast reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction [latissimus dorsi (LD), pedicled transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), and DIEP] were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2009-2011). A total of 19,182 hospital discharges were reviewed. Patient demographics, hospital teaching center status, payer status, length of stay, total charges, and total costs per discharge were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression, t test, and analysis of variance models. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2011, the total number of discharges did not change significantly. Patient age distribution was similar for all flap groups. For individual flaps, there was a significant increase in DIEP flaps (P = 0.03), with a decreasing trend for other abdominal-based flaps. The patients receiving DIEP flap breast reconstruction were covered by private insurance at a higher rate than all other flap procedures (P = 0.03), whereas other potential cost determinants did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean charge per flap was $40,704 for LD, $51,933 for pTRAM, $69,909 for fTRAM, and $82,320 for DIEP. The mean cost per flap was $12,017 for LD, $15,538 for pTRAM, $20,756 for fTRAM, and $23,616 for DIEP. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2009 and 2011, the total amount of autologous breast reconstruction discharges was relatively stable, but the number of DIEP flaps increased significantly. Review of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data shows that, compared with LD, pTRAM, and fTRAM flaps, the DIEP flap is associated with higher charges and costs.

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.

The cost effectiveness of the DIEP flap relative to the muscle-sparing TRAM flap in postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap has gained notoriety because of its proposed benefit in decreasing donor-site morbidity but has been associated with longer operative times, higher perfusion-related complications, and increased cost relative to muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. The authors performed the first cost-utility analysis examining the cost effectiveness of DIEP flaps relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in women who underwent mastectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the MED- LINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to include studies directly comparing DIEP to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in matched patient cohorts. Eight studies were included, examining 740 DIEP flaps and 807 muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps. Costs were derived adopting both societal and third-party payer perspectives. Utilities were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis. Probabilities of clinically relevant complications were combined with cost and utility estimates to fit into a decision tree analysis. RESULTS: The overall complication rates were 24.7 percent and 21.8 percent for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps, respectively. The authors' baseline analysis using Medicare reimbursement revealed a cost decrease of $69.42 and a clinical benefit of 0.0035 quality-adjusted life-year when performing DIEP flap surgery relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flap surgery, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of -$19,834.29. When using societal costs, the incremental cost-utility ratio increased to $87,800. CONCLUSION: DIEP flaps are cost effective relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps when patients are carefully selected based on perforator anatomy and surgery is performed by experienced surgeons.

A cost-utility analysis of the use of preoperative computed tomographic angiography in abdomen-based perforator flap breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic angiography is a diagnostic tool increasingly used for preoperative vascular mapping in abdomen-based perforator flap breast reconstruction. This study compared the use of computed tomographic angiography and the conventional practice of Doppler ultrasonography only in postmastectomy reconstruction using a cost-utility model. METHODS: Following a comprehensive literature review, a decision analytic model was created using the three most clinically relevant health outcomes in free autologous breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography versus Doppler ultrasonography only. Cost and utility estimates for each health outcome were used to derive the quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-utility ratio. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to scrutinize the robustness of the authors' results. RESULTS: Six studies and 782 patients were identified. Cost-utility analysis revealed a baseline cost savings of $3179, a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.25. This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of -$12,716, implying a dominant choice favoring preoperative computed tomographic angiography. Sensitivity analysis revealed that computed tomographic angiography was costlier when the operative time difference between the two techniques was less than 21.3 minutes. However, the clinical advantage of computed tomographic angiography over Doppler ultrasonography only showed that computed tomographic angiography would still remain the cost-effective option even if it offered no additional operating time advantage. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results show that computed tomographic angiography is a cost-effective technology for identifying lower abdominal perforators for autologous breast reconstruction. Although the perfect study would be a randomized controlled trial of the two approaches with true cost accrual, the authors' results represent the best available evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursement has been recognized as a physician barrier to autologous reconstruction. Autologous reconstructions are more expensive than prosthetic reconstructions, but provide greater health-related quality of life. The authors' hypothesis is that autologous tissue reconstructions are cost-effective compared with prosthetic techniques when considering health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis from the payer perspective, including patient input, was performed for unilateral and bilateral reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and implants. The effectiveness measure was derived using the BREAST-Q and interpreted as the cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year. Costs were obtained from the 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was generated. A sensitivity analysis for age and stage at diagnosis was performed. RESULTS: BREAST-Q scores from 309 patients with implants and 217 DIEP flap reconstructions were included. The additional cost for obtaining 1 year of perfect breast-related health for a unilateral DIEP flap compared with implant reconstruction was $11,941. For bilateral DIEP flaps compared with implant reconstructions, the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year was $28,017. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost for an additional breast health-related quality-adjusted life-year for DIEP flaps compared with implants was less for younger patients and earlier stage breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: DIEP flaps are cost-effective compared with implants, especially for unilateral reconstructions. Cost-effectiveness of autologous techniques is maximized in women with longer life expectancy. Patient-reported outcomes findings can be incorporated into cost-effectiveness analyses to demonstrate the relative value of reconstructive procedures.