The Early Years of Practice: An Assessment of Operative Efficiency and Cost of Free Flap and Implant Breast Reconstruction at an Academic Institution

Improved Operative Efficiency and Surgical Times in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A 15-year Single-center Retrospective Review

Background

Autologous breast reconstruction using a free deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is a complex procedure that requires a dedicated approach to achieve operative efficiency. We analyzed data for DIEP flaps at a single center over 15 years to identify factors contributing to operative efficiency.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective cohort analysis was performed of consecutive patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction using DIEP free flaps between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019. Data were abstracted a priori from electronic medical records. Analysis was conducted by a medical statistician.

Results

Analysis of 416 unilateral and 320 bilateral cases (1056 flaps) demonstrated reduction in operative times from 2005 to 2019 (11.7-8.2 hours for bilateral and 8.4-6.2 hours for unilateral, P < 0.000). On regression analysis, factors significantly correlating with reduced operative times include the use of venous couplers (P < 0.000), and the internal mammary versus the thoracodorsal recipient vessels (P < 0.000). Individual surgeon experience correlated with reduced OR times. Post-operative length of stay decreased significantly, without an increase in 30-day readmission or emergency presentations. Flap failure occurred in two cases. Flap take-back rate was 2% (n = 23) with no change between 2005 and 2019.

Conclusions

Operative times for breast reconstruction have decreased significantly at this center over 15 years. The introduction of venous couplers, use of the internal mammary system, and year of surgery significantly correlated with decreased operative times. Surgeon experience and a shift in surgical workflow for DIEP flap reconstruction likely contributed to the latter finding.

Variation in Payment per Work Relative Value Unit for Breast Reconstruction and Nonbreast Microsurgical Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claims Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Commercial payments for implant-based breast reconstruction have increased within the past decade, whereas reimbursements have stagnated for microsurgical techniques. The physician payment-to-work relative value unit ratio allows for standardization when comparing procedures of differing complexity. This study aimed to characterize payment per work relative value unit for common breast and nonbreast microsurgical procedures.

METHODS

The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried from 2010 to 2014 for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to microsurgical and breast reconstruction. International Classification of Diseases codes were further used to categorize procedures by anatomical region, including head and neck, breast, trunk, and extremities. Physician payments, both commercial and governmental, were aggregated by anatomical region and CPT code. Payment distributions were described with means and medians and compared using statistical tests.

RESULTS

Among 3435 commercial claims, distributions of physician payments per work relative value unit for microsurgical and common breast procedures differed only for breast free flaps billed through S codes (p < 0.001). Microsurgical breast procedures (CPT code 19364) had significantly greater median payments per work relative value unit compared to microsurgery of the head and neck, trunk, and upper extremities (p = 0.004). Payment per work relative value unit for common breast and nonbreast microsurgical procedures did not differ significantly among governmental claims (p = 0.103).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustment of physician payments by work relative value units did not show significant variability across common breast procedures, except for S codes, suggesting that payments are mostly driven by differences in work relative value units and individual contractual negotiations. Lower payments per work relative value unit for other regions compared to breast suggests an opportunity for negotiation with commercial payers.

Disparities in Access to Autologous Breast Reconstruction

Background and objectives: This study aimed to determine if age, race, region, insurance, and comorbidities affect the type of breast reconstruction that patients receive. Materials and methods: This analysis used the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset from 1 January 2013 to 30 September 2017, which contains deidentified patient-level administrative data from all acute care hospitals in the state of Florida. We included female patients, diagnosed with breast cancer, who underwent mastectomy and a subsequent breast reconstruction. We performed an χ2 test and logistic regression in this analysis. Results: On the multivariable analysis, we found that age, race, patient region, insurance payer, and Elixhauser score were all variables that significantly affected the type of reconstruction that patients received. Our results show that African American (odds ratio (OR): 0.68, 95%CI: 0.58-0.78, p < 0.001) and Hispanic or Latino (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.72-0.93, p = 0.003) patients have significantly lower odds of receiving implant reconstruction when compared to white patients. Patients with Medicare (OR: 1.57, 95%CI: 1.33-1.86, p < 0.001) had significantly higher odds and patients with Medicaid (OR: 0.61, 95%CI: 0.51-0.74, p < 0.001) had significantly lower odds of getting autologous reconstruction when compared to patients with commercial insurance. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that, in the state of Florida over the past years, variables, such as race, region, insurance, and comorbidities, play an important role in choosing the reconstruction modality. More efforts are needed to eradicate disparities and give all patients, despite their race, insurance payer, or region, equal access to health care.

Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Exploring Plastic Surgeon Practice Patterns and Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Within the multidisciplinary management of breast cancer, variations exist in the reconstructive options offered and care provided. The authors evaluated plastic surgeon perspectives on important issues related to breast cancer management and reconstruction and provide some insight into factors that influence these perspectives.

METHODS

Women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer (stages 0 to II) between July of 2013 and September of 2014 were identified through the Georgia and Los Angeles Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. These women were surveyed and identified their treating plastic surgeons. Surveys were sent to the identified plastic surgeons to collect data on specific reconstruction practices.

RESULTS

Responses from 134 plastic surgeons (74.4 percent response rate) were received. Immediate reconstruction (79.7 percent) was the most common approach to timing, and expander/implant reconstruction (72.6 percent) was the most common technique reported. Nearly one-third of respondents (32.1 percent) reported that reimbursement influenced the proportion of autologous reconstructions performed. Most (82.8 percent) reported that discussions about contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were initiated by patients. Most surgeons (81.3 to 84.3 percent) felt that good symmetry is achieved with unilateral autologous reconstruction with contralateral symmetry procedures in patients with small or large breasts; a less pronounced majority (62.7 percent) favored unilateral implant reconstructions in patients with large breasts. In patients requiring postmastectomy radiation therapy, one-fourth of the surgeons (27.6 percent) reported that they seldom recommend delayed reconstruction, and 64.9 percent reported recommending immediate expander/implant reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive practices in a modern cohort of plastic surgeons suggest that immediate and implant reconstructions are performed preferentially. Respondents perceived a number of factors, including surgeon training, time spent in the operating room, and insurance reimbursement, to negatively influence the performance of autologous reconstruction.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Variations in Reimbursement for Breast Reconstruction: Is A Healthcare Disparity On the Horizon?

BACKGROUND

Despite growing demand for breast reconstruction, financial disincentives to perform breast reconstruction in patients with government-sponsored insurance plans may lead to longer wait times and decreased access to care. We identify the variation in reimbursement for implant and autologous reconstruction as a step toward understanding these financial implications, to develop safeguards to minimize effects on access to care.

METHODS

Billing data were collected over a 10-year period for patients undergoing implant-based (19357) or free-flap (19364) breast reconstruction. Patients were placed into cohorts according to insurance type-Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, and these were directly compared.

RESULTS

A total of 2691 women underwent breast reconstruction between 2003 and 2013; 71.2% had private insurance, 13.3% had Medicaid, and 14.49% had Medicare. For implant-based reconstructions, the average reimbursement of total charges was 16.3% for Medicaid, 28.3% for Medicare, and 67.2% for private insurance. For autologous reconstruction, average reimbursement was 12.37% for Medicaid, 22.9% for Medicare, and 35.35% for private insurance. Hourly reimbursement estimates for Medicaid patients undergoing autologous reconstruction were lowest. The highest hourly reimbursement estimate was for privately insured patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction. Over time, reimbursement for autologous reconstruction has declined significantly for all payor types, whereas implant-based reimbursement disparities are narrowing.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that wide variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction procedures exist and may preclude some surgeons from offering certain reconstructive options to a subset of patients. Understanding these discrepancies is a key first step in minimizing a potential care delivery disparity for this patient population.

Improved pocket control in immediate microsurgical breast reconstruction with simultaneous implant placement through the use of mesh

BACKGROUND

Autologous breast reconstruction is associated with long-term patient satisfaction that is superior to implant-based approaches. Occasionally, however, patients who desire autologous reconstruction present with inadequate donor-site volume. A hybrid approach, combining free flap reconstruction with simultaneous implant placement, is a solution. We present our experience with the use of mesh for improved pocket control using this reconstructive modality.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction was performed. Patients who underwent bilateral immediate breast reconstruction with free microsurgical abdominal tissue transfer with simultaneous implant placement were included for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients (38 breasts) with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 31-57 years) and mean BMI of 26.3 (range, 23.6-30.8) were included in the study. No flap loss or implant-related complications were encountered during a mean follow-up of 14.2 months. The most common implant volume was 150 cc (N = 15; [78.9%]). No patient requested an implant change due to malposition or insufficient volume. Secondary fat grafting was performed in 5 patients (26.3%), 4 of which had undergone adjuvant radiotherapy. Three cases of red breast syndrome were observed following acellular dermal matrix placement. This prompted a transition to using polyglactin mesh thereafter without any untoward sequelae.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal flap transfer with simultaneous implant placement is a safe reconstructive option in select patients. Improved implant pocket control is achieved through the use of mesh, thus, minimizing problems related to implant malposition. Adjuvant radiotherapy does not appear to put the reconstruction at risk with the occasional flap volume loss being easily remedied by secondary fat grafting.