Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix
- PMID: 24091489
- DOI: 10.1007/s00266-013-0213-2
Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix
Abstract
Background: Use of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction has been widely adopted. Despite an increasing focus on health care costs, few reports have addressed the financial implications of ADM use. This study sought to examine the costs of the two-stage technique with and without ADM, concentrating on the direct variable costs of patient care during the expansion process.
Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was conducted. Data were collected on 132 cases resulting in a second-stage exchange for a permanent implant. The findings showed that AlloDerm was used in 61 reconstructions and Strattice in 23 reconstructions. The primary outcome was the number of fills required to achieve the final expander fill volume. The cost of subsequent patient encounters for expansion was estimated using institutional cost data.
Results: The number of fills required to achieve the final volume was higher in the non-ADM group (6.5 ± 1.7) than in the ADM group (3.6 ± 1.4) (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in the small fill volumes (<350 ml; 5.3 vs. 3.7; p > 0.05). The difference was significant in the larger fill volumes (>500 ml; 8.3 vs. 3.7; p < 0.05). Relative to non-ADM reconstruction, with AlloDerm at current prices, the cost increase ranged from $2,727.75 for large reconstructions to $3,290.25 for small reconstructions ($2,167.75-$2,739.25 with Strattice).
Conclusion: The use of ADM in two-stage reconstruction reduces the number of visits required for reconstructions with 350 ml or more. However, at current pricings, the direct cost of ADM use does not offset the cost savings from the reduced number of visits.
Level of evidence iv: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Similar articles
-
Does acellular dermal matrix really improve aesthetic outcome in tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction?Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015 Jun;39(3):359-68. doi: 10.1007/s00266-015-0484-x. Epub 2015 Apr 17. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015. PMID: 25894022
-
The cost effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix in expander-implant immediate breast reconstruction.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014 Apr;67(4):468-76. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.035. Epub 2014 Jan 23. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014. PMID: 24508194 Review.
-
Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix.Ann Plast Surg. 2012 Nov;69(5):516-20. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e318217fb21. Ann Plast Surg. 2012. PMID: 21587037
-
Outcome of the use of acellular-dermal matrix to assist implant-based breast reconstruction in a single centre.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jan;41(1):100-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.08.475. Epub 2014 Sep 6. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015. PMID: 25238954
-
Use of human acellular dermal matrix in implant- based breast reconstruction: evaluating the evidence.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Dec;64(12):1553-61. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2011.02.001. Epub 2011 Mar 8. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011. PMID: 21388901 Review.
Cited by
-
A Head-to-head Comparison between SurgiMend and Epiflex in 127 Breast Reconstructions.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015 Jul 8;3(6):e439. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000409. eCollection 2015 Jun. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015. PMID: 26180740 Free PMC article.
-
The Usage of Mesh and Relevant Prognosis in Implant Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Meta-analysis.Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024 Sep;48(17):3386-3399. doi: 10.1007/s00266-024-03879-5. Epub 2024 Mar 4. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024. PMID: 38438762
-
Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix.J Pers Med. 2021 Feb 22;11(2):153. doi: 10.3390/jpm11020153. J Pers Med. 2021. PMID: 33671712 Free PMC article.
-
Regenerative and engineered options for urethroplasty.Nat Rev Urol. 2019 Aug;16(8):453-464. doi: 10.1038/s41585-019-0198-y. Epub 2019 Jun 6. Nat Rev Urol. 2019. PMID: 31171866 Review.
-
Single Stitch Vicryl Mesh Wrap for Prepectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction.Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023 Jun 12;11(6):e5058. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005058. eCollection 2023 Jun. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023. PMID: 37313479 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials