Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix

Jonathan Bank, Nicole A. Phillips, Julie Park, David H. Song

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

25 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1194-1201
Number of pages8
JournalAesthetic Plastic Surgery
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Acellular Dermis
Mammaplasty
Economics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Skin
Cost Savings
Health Care Costs
Patient Care
Databases

Keywords

  • Acellular dermal matrix
  • Breast reconstruction
  • Economics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix. / Bank, Jonathan; Phillips, Nicole A.; Park, Julie; Song, David H.

In: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Vol. 37, No. 6, 01.12.2013, p. 1194-1201.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{1249375a27bd4f6c90361ce28858a7ba,
title = "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.",
keywords = "Acellular dermal matrix, Breast reconstruction, Economics",
author = "Jonathan Bank and Phillips, {Nicole A.} and Julie Park and Song, {David H.}",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00266-013-0213-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "1194--1201",
journal = "Aesthetic Plastic Surgery",
issn = "0364-216X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic analysis and review of the literature on implant-based breast reconstruction with and without the use of the acellular dermal matrix

AU - Bank, Jonathan

AU - Phillips, Nicole A.

AU - Park, Julie

AU - Song, David H.

PY - 2013/12/1

Y1 - 2013/12/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Acellular dermal matrix

KW - Breast reconstruction

KW - Economics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888159670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888159670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00266-013-0213-2

DO - 10.1007/s00266-013-0213-2

M3 - Review article

VL - 37

SP - 1194

EP - 1201

JO - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

JF - Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

SN - 0364-216X

IS - 6

ER -