The Cost Effectiveness of the DIEP Flap Relative to the Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

被引:35
|
作者
Krishnan, Naveen M.
Purnell, Chad
Nahabedian, Maurice Y.
Freed, Gary L.
Nigriny, John F.
Rosen, Joseph M.
Rosson, Gedge D.
机构
[1] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Hanover, NH USA
[2] Geisel Sch Med Dartmouth, Hanover, NH USA
[3] Dartmouth Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Lebanon, NH USA
[4] Northwestern Univ, Dept Surg, Div Plast Surg, Feinberg Sch Med, Evanston, IL 60208 USA
[5] Georgetown Hosp, Dept Plast Surg, Washington, DC USA
[6] Johns Hopkins Univ Hosp, Dept Plast Surg, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD 21287 USA
关键词
EPIGASTRIC PERFORATOR FLAP; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOMES; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000001125
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
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 MEDLINE, 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.
引用
收藏
页码:948 / 958
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap Does Not Protect Breast Reconstruction from Postmastectomy Radiation Damage Compared with the DIEP Flap
    Garvey, Patrick B.
    Clemens, Mark W.
    Hoy, Austin E.
    Smith, Benjamin
    Zhang, Hong
    Kronowitz, Steven J.
    Butler, Charles E.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2014, 133 (02) : 223 - 233
  • [2] Breast reconstruction with the DIEP flap or the muscle-sparing (MS-2) free TRAM flap: Is there a difference?
    Nahabedian, MY
    Tsangaris, T
    Momen, B
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2005, 115 (02) : 436 - 444
  • [3] Comparison of donor-site complications and functional outcomes in free muscle-sparing TRAM flap and free DIEP flap breast reconstruction
    Nahahedian, MY
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2006, 117 (03) : 747 - 750
  • [4] The Muscle-Sparing Latissimus Dorsi Flap for Breast Reconstruction
    Berry, M. G.
    Curnier, A.
    Fitoussi, A. D.
    Couturaud, B.
    Salmon, R. J.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2009, 124 (03) : 1000 - 1001
  • [5] Clinical and Quantitative Isokinetic Comparison of Abdominal Morbidity and Dynamics following DIEP versus Muscle-Sparing Free TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction
    Nelson, Jonas A.
    Disa, Joseph J.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 142 (01) : 92E - 94E
  • [6] Clinical and Quantitative Isokinetic Comparison of Abdominal Morbidity and Dynamics following DIEP versus Muscle-Sparing Free TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction
    Uda, Hirokazu
    Kamochi, Hideaki
    Sarukawa, Syunji
    Sunaga, Ataru
    Sugawara, Yasushi
    Yoshimura, Kotaro
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 140 (06) : 1101 - 1109
  • [7] Options in breast reconstruction: TRAM, DIEP or SIEA flap?
    Blondeel, PN
    [J]. WSRM: Proceedings of the III Congress of the World Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, 2005, : 1 - 1
  • [8] PREOPERATIVE TRAM FLAP PLANNING FOR POSTMASTECTOMY BREAST RECONSTRUCTION
    BERRINO, P
    SANTI, P
    [J]. ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 1988, 21 (03) : 264 - 272
  • [9] Transfusion requirements for TRAM flap postmastectomy breast reconstruction
    Tzilinis, A
    Lofman, AM
    Tzarnas, CD
    [J]. ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY, 2003, 50 (06) : 623 - 627
  • [10] Using Propensity Score Analysis to Compare Major Complications between DIEP and Free Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap Breast Reconstructions
    Zhong, Toni
    Novak, Christine B.
    Bagher, Shaghayegh
    Maass, Saskia W. M. C.
    Zhang, Jing
    Arad, Udi
    O'Neill, Anne C.
    Metcalfe, Kelly A.
    Hofer, Stefan O. P.
    [J]. PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2014, 133 (04) : 774 - 782