Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar;47(3):1037-1057.
doi: 10.1002/hed.28035. Epub 2024 Dec 31.

Cost Outcomes of Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Jenny B Xiao  1 , Norbert Banyi  1 , Khanh Linh Tran  2 , Eitan Prisman  1   2
Affiliations

Cost Outcomes of Virtual Surgical Planning in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Jenny B Xiao et al. Head Neck. 2025 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) is an emerging method in head and neck reconstruction with demonstrated benefits, however, its economic viability is supported with mixed evidence.

Methods: A structured search was performed in five electronic databases. Studies that performed an economic evaluation on VSP in head and neck reconstruction were included. Data regarding VSP workflow, costs, and variables influencing costs were recorded and synthesized.

Results: Eighteen studies met the final inclusion criteria (n = 733). Fourteen out of 18 studies (78%) found that VSP either generated cost savings or was comparable to freehand surgery (FHS). The majority of cost savings were generated from reduced OR times and LOS/LOH. In addition, greater cost savings were associated with in-house VSP workflows compared to those that are outsourced.

Conclusion: VSP is potentially cost-beneficial compared to traditional unplanned surgery, however, substantial heterogeneity amongst methods and outcome measures impedes the generalizability of these findings.

Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024504398.

Keywords: cost savings; cost‐effectiveness; free flap reconstruction; maxillary reconstruction; virtual surgical planning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
PRISMA flow diagram of study selection. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Hofer S. O. P. and Payne C. E., “Functional and Aesthetic Outcome Enhancement of Head and Neck Reconstruction Through Secondary Procedures,” Seminars in Plastic Surgery 24, no. 3 (2010): 309–318, 10.1055/s-0030-1263072. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Swartz W. M., Banis J. C., Newton E. D., Ramasastry S. S., Jones N. F., and Acland R., “The Osteocutaneous Scapular Flap for Mandibular and Maxillary Reconstruction,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 77, no. 4 (1986): 530–545, 10.1097/00006534-198604000-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coleman S. C., Burkey B. B., Day T. A., et al., “Increasing Use of the Scapula Osteocutaneous Free Flap,” Laryngoscope 110, no. 9 (2000): 1419–1424, 10.1097/00005537-200009000-00001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Urken M. L., Bridger A. G., Zur K. B., and Genden E. M., “The Scapular Osteofasciocutaneous Flap: A 12‐Year Experience,” Archives of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery 127, no. 7 (2001): 862–869. - PubMed
    1. Kearns M., Ermogenous P., Myers S., and Ghanem A. M., “Osteocutaneous Flaps for Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Focused Evaluation of Donor Site Morbidity and Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Different Reconstruction Options,” Archives of Plastic Surgery 45, no. 6 (2018): 495–503, 10.5999/aps.2017.01592. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms