Pricing of common cosmetic surgery procedures: local economic factors trump supply and demand

Academic visualization study of aesthetic medicine management and related legal research since 2000

BACKGROUND

Aesthetics medicine, a controversial branch of clinical medicine known for its high degree of commercialization, faces numerous conflicts, particularly in some developing countries. The global aesthetics medicine industry requires enhancements of its legal and supervision framework and risk management systems.

AIMS

This paper aimed to provide a comprehensive visual analysis of academic achievements related to regulatory and legal issues in the field of aesthetic medicine and to identify its development trends and research hotspots.

METHODS

The Web of Science Core Collection was employed to retrieve relevant studies, resulting in a total of 602 research articles after selection. Utilizing bibliometric methods and CiteSpace, this study analyzed the primary countries, institutions, authors, journals, hotspots, frontiers, and trends in this domain.

RESULTS

The findings indicated rapid increases in the number of published papers. The United States emerged as the leading contributor with 131 research papers and the highest intermediate centrality. Eleven keyword clusters were identified, with "adolescence" and "office-based surgery" being the most recent topics. We also analyzed the trends and frontiers of legal research in medical aesthetics.

CONCLUSION

The importance of informed consent has been increasingly emphasized, and research in the field of medical aesthetics has been gradually expanding beyond individual cosmetic procedures. The management system has become more comprehensive, moreover, guidelines and medical laws have been continually published, with research shifting toward a holistic perspective that encompasses patients, medical aesthetic providers, and regulatory authorities in the study of medical aesthetics regulation and legislation. This paper also proposes some innovative directions for future research and applications.

The Price Is Right? An Economic Analysis of Factors Influencing Cosmetic Surgery Prices

BACKGROUND

Cosmetic surgery is a large portion of practice revenue for many plastic surgeons, and therefore understanding the economic principles of pricing is critical. Although national averages provide a starting point for price determination, they may not reflect specific economic factors. Over the last decade, publicly reported pricing for cosmetic surgery has increased in prevalence, improving price transparency for patients and surgeons alike.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare publicly reported prices to national cosmetic surgery averages and identify variables that have the greatest impact on price determination.

METHODS

An Internet search was performed with the term "cosmetic surgery, price" for practices that publicly reported cosmetic surgery prices. Publicly reported prices were compared to national averages generated from The Aesthetic Society's Aesthetic Society Plastic Surgery National Databank Statistics. The impact of regional prices, practice type, and surgeon accreditation were analyzed for the most popular cosmetic surgery procedures.

RESULTS

Sixty-six practices were identified that reported cosmetic surgery pricing information. Publicly reported prices were significantly higher for all surgical procedures except nipple procedures, excision of (excess) skin, fat grafting, fat harvest, and lip enhancement. Facility/operating room fees (n = 38) and anesthesia fees (n = 34) were the most common components included in a price, after surgeons' fees (n = 66). A significant price difference was appreciated when separating practices by region for all procedures except breast augmentation (P = .074) and liposuction (P = .088).

CONCLUSIONS

Publicly reported prices provide greater insight than national averages into specific pricing factors and strategies that can be employed when setting surgical prices.

Postabdominoplasty Scar Improvement after a Single Session with an Automated 1210-nm Laser

Abdominoplasty, one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures, aims at correcting excess abdominal skin and fat, but generates a long abdominal scar. The efficacy of an automated portative 1210-nm laser in improving the appearance of surgical scars has been previously demonstrated in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. The purpose of this work was to document the use of this laser in real-life practice.

Methods

Eighteen patients undergoing abdominoplasty and treated with the evaluated laser (UrgoTouch, Laboratoires Urgo; one single session immediately after the surgery) were included in this prospective, mono-center, observational study. Change in scar characteristics was assessed using the validated Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and the patients' and surgeon's satisfaction was rated using a four-point scale.

Results

The aesthetic outcome of the scars was very positive with a mean Observer Scar Assessment Scale score of 17.0 (SD 4.6) and 14.4 (SD 3.8) on the 6-60 point scale (60: the worst possible outcome) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. A high degree of satisfaction was also expressed by both surgeon and patients at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. No laser-related incident was reported during the study, including in patients with darker phototypes.

Conclusions

These findings seem to be consistent with previous clinical evidence on the use of this laser on fresh incisions. The high degree of satisfaction reported by both surgeon and patients seems to comfort the benefits of this procedure at short- and long-term and support the use of this laser in daily practice of plastic surgery.

A Systematic Review on the Implementation and Educational Value of Resident Aesthetic Clinics

BACKGROUND

Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) provide plastic surgery residents with hands-on aesthetic surgery training. Although RACs have demonstrated successful surgical outcomes without compromising patient care, few studies have evaluated the efficacy or educational value of RACs to increase resident confidence and competence in procedures. In addition, clinic structures vary widely among institutions, with each clinic offering a unique patient volume, caseload, and degree of resident autonomy that impacts the clinic's educational value. This systematic review identifies existing RAC practices, compares clinic structures, and proposes a curriculum framework to maximize educational value for residents.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of plastic surgery residency training program RACs. We queried PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2000 to April 2020. Eligible articles were original articles that discussed RAC structure and educational value. Data abstracted included details on clinic structure (eg, volume, location, cost, clinic operations) and trainee-perceived educational value (eg, resident satisfaction, resident confidence in procedures).

RESULTS

Of 1199 identified publications, 10 met the inclusion criteria: 6 single-site studies and 4 national survey studies. Among the single-site studies, annual volumes ranged from 22 to 68 patients/year and 35 to 81 cases/year. Resident aesthetic clinics were all staffed by full-time academic faculty (100%); one-third also were staffed by adjunct faculty and 17% also by community plastic surgeons. Resident involvement varied by hours in clinic and degree of autonomy. The survey studies found that RACs increase resident confidence and competence in performing aesthetic procedures and identified critical challenges to RAC implementation (eg, financial viability, continuity of care) that limited RAC educational value. Based on this review's findings, we propose a 6-step RAC curriculum framework for training programs seeking to establish an RAC and maximize the clinic's educational value.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident aesthetic clinics are increasingly important for providing plastic surgery residents with aesthetic training. Patient and case volume, degree of resident autonomy, and clinic attending physicians are critical determinants of the educational value of RACs. We hope our findings can aid plastic surgery training programs in better organizing educational and sustainable RACs.

Association between socioeconomic status and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still unclear, and there is no nomogram integrated SES and clinicopathological factors to predict the prognosis of HCC. This research aims to confirm the effects of SES on predicting patients' survival and to establish a nomogram to predict the prognosis of HCC.

METHODS

The data of HCC patients were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Final Results (SEER) database from 2011 to 2015. SES (age at diagnosis, race and sex, median family income, education level, insurance status, marital status, residence, cost of living index, poverty rate) and clinicopathological factors were included in univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Nomograms for predicting 1-, 3-, and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were established and evaluated by the concordance index (C-index), the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), the calibration plot, the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and the net reclassification improvement (NRI).

RESULTS

A total of 33,670 diagnosed HCC patients were involved, and nomograms consisting of 19 variables were established. The C-indexes of the nomograms are higher than TNM staging system, which predicts the CSS (0.789 vs. 0.692, p < 0.01) and OS (0.777 vs. 0.675, p < 0.01). The ROC curve, calibration diagram, IDI, and NRI showed the improved prognostic value in 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates.

CONCLUSION

SES plays an important role in the prognosis of HCC patients. Therefore, policymakers can make more precise and socially approved policies to improve HCC patients' CSS and OS.

Board Certification and Surgeon's Fee for Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

Elective rhinoplasty surgeons' fees vary considerably and are influenced by geographic surgeon density, surgeon's experience, local economic factors, patient demand, and other factors. The American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Society of Plastic Surgery, and other organizations certify physicians who profess expertise in rhinoplasty. We sought to determine if specific board certification or experience correlates with higher rhinoplasty fee. An internet search was conducted of seven U.S. metropolitan areas using the search terms "rhinoplasty and "city name." Top search results were surveyed for rhinoplasty fee, years of experience, annual volume of rhinoplasties, board certification, and other demographic data. Using both univariate and multivariate comparisons, the data were analyzed for forces having significant correlation with rhinoplasty fee. Sixty-seven surgeons were included in the study. The average price for ABFPRS certified surgeons was significantly higher than surgeons with other board certifications ($10,550.00 ± 3,722.10 compared with $8,524.50 ± 2816.30, p = 0.0142). The volume of rhinoplasties performed per year was also significantly correlated with fee charged for rhinoplasty by the surgeon (r = 0.37773, p = 0.032). Additionally, surgeons practicing on the West Coast (LA) charged significantly higher fees ($12,059.09 ± 3014.53) compared with the Mid United States. ($8316.07 ± 2449.43) and the East Coast ($9152.86 ± 3639.78) (p = 0.0047). On multivariable linear regression, controlling for volume of rhinoplasty and region of the United States, ABFPRS certified surgeons charged significantly higher fees for rhinoplasty (p = 0.0230). ABFPRS board certification correlates with higher fees charged for rhinoplasty. Other important variables include surgeon's annual rhinoplasty and practice on the West Coast.

The Cost Variability of Orthobiologics

BACKGROUND

Mixed results exist regarding the benefit of orthobiologic injections. The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in costs for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell (SC) injections and evaluate for variables that influence pricing.

HYPOTHESIS

There will be significant variability in the cost of PRP and SC injections throughout the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive epidemiology study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

Calls were made to 1345 orthopaedic sports medicine practices across the United States inquiring into the availability of PRP or SC knee injections and associated costs. In addition to pricing, the practice type, number of providers, and population and income demographics were recorded. Univariate statistical analyses were used to identify differences in availability and cost between variables.

RESULTS

Of the contacted offices that provided information on both PRP and SC availability (n = 1325), 268 (20.2%) offered both treatments, 550 (41.5%) offered only PRP injections, 20 (1.5%) offered only SC injections, and 487 (36.8%) did not offer either treatment. The mean ± SD cost of a PRP injection was $707 ± $388 (range, $175-$4973), and the mean cost of an SC injection was $2728 ± $1584 (range, $300-$12,000). Practices offering PRP and SC injections tended to be larger (PRP, 12.0 physicians per practice vs. 8.1 [P < 0.001]; SC, 13.6 vs 9.7 [P < 0.001]). Practices that offered PRP injections were located in areas with higher median household income (P = 0.047). Variables associated with higher cost of PRP injections included city population (P < 0.001) and median income of residents (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While the majority of sports medicine practices across the United States offer some type of orthobiologic injection, there exists significant variability in the cost of these injections.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates the significant variability in costs of orthobiologic injections throughout the country, which will allow sports medicine physicians to appreciate the value of these injections when counseling patients on available treatment options.

Demographic Differences Among Patients Undergoing Blepharoplasty Based on Surgeon Training in New York State

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether patient demographics and surgical metrics varied among differently trained surgeons performing blepharoplasty.

METHODS

The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was used to identify patients who underwent blepharoplasty in New York State. Surgeons were grouped based on residency training as listed in the New York State Physician Profile. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine predictors of patient characteristics based on surgeon training.

RESULTS

There were 361 surgeons who performed 39,932 cases of blepharoplasty in New York State from 2008 to 2016. When aggregated by surgeon training, there were significant differences among procedure times and total charges for blepharoplasty. On average, cases performed by ophthalmologists took 66.7 minutes and patients were charged $6,860; cases performed by otolaryngologists took 158.2 minutes and patients were charged $9,084; and cases performed by plastic surgeons took 131.8 minutes and patients were charged $11,028. Unlike plastic surgeons or otolaryngologists, ophthalmologists tended to have older patients and more male patients. Ophthalmologists were more likely to operate on patients with comorbidities as well as non-white patients (p < 0.0001). They were also significantly more likely to have patients with insurance coverage than self-pay (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic and surgical metrics of blepharoplasty cases performed by surgeons trained in otolaryngology and plastic surgery are similar. Ophthalmology-trained surgeons performed blepharoplasty on patients that were more likely to be older, male, non-white, and had insurance coverage. Ophthalmologist procedure time for blepharoplasty was also less than half of the procedure time of otolaryngologists and plastic surgeons.Blepharoplasty is a surgical procedure commonly performed by ophthalmologists, otolaryngologists, and plastic surgeons to address cosmetic concerns or visual impairment related to the eyelids.

Comparison of Aesthetic Quality of the Final Scar in Abdominoplasty with Conventional and Mini Inverted t-Scar

Background and objectives: Abdominoplasty is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures. The excess skin in the conventional abdominoplasty is transversely excised and a single horizontal scar is formed. The mini inverted t-scar abdominoplasty is a modification of the “Fleur-de-lis” technique and involves the use of a small vertical incision in comparison to the long vertical incision. The aim of this technique is to lower the position of the final abdominal scar instead of addressing the horizontal laxity. In this study, we have compared the aesthetic satisfaction, width and the position of the scar with conventional abdominoplasty and mini inverted t-scar abdominoplasty. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients undergoing abdominoplasty and breast reconstruction with transverse rectus abdominis flap (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric flap (DIEP) were included in the study. In 15 patients, abdominal closure with the conventional transverse scar was performed. In the remaining 15 patients, closure with a mini inverted t-scar was performed. Scar width, scar height and satisfaction scores were evaluated in both groups. Results: Scar widths, scar heights and patients’ and as well as surgeons’ satisfaction scores were better in the mini inverted t-scar group than the conventional group. Conclusions: The visibility of the vertical scar alone should not be a reason to avoid mini inverse t-scar abdominoplasty. Mini inverted t-scar can be an option to achieve a better hidden high-quality scar.

Drivers of Hospital Costs in the Self-Pay Facelift (Rhytidectomy) Patient: Analysis of Hospital Resource Utilization in 1890 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Rhytidectomy is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures by plastic surgeons. Increasing attention to the development of a high-value, low-cost healthcare system is a priority in the USA. This study aims to analyze specific patient and hospital factors affecting the cost of this procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of self-pay patients over the age of 18 who underwent rhytidectomy using the Healthcare Utilization Cost Project National Inpatient Sample database between 2013 and 2014. Mean marginal cost increases patient characteristics, and outcomes were studied. Generalized linear modeling with gamma regression and a log-link function were performed along with estimated marginal means to provide cost estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 1890 self-pay patients underwent rhytidectomy. Median cost was $11,767 with an interquartile range of $8907 [$6976-$15,883]. The largest marginal cost increases were associated with postoperative hematoma ($12,651; CI $8181-$17,120), West coast region ($7539; 95% CI $6412-$8666), and combined rhinoplasty ($7824; 95% CI $3808-$11,840). The two risk factors associated with the generation of highest marginal inpatient costs were smoking ($4147; 95% CI $2804-$5490) and diabetes mellitus ($5622; 95% CI $3233-8011). High-volume hospitals had a decreased cost of - $1331 (95% CI - $2032 to - $631).

CONCLUSION

Cost variation for inpatient rhytidectomy procedures is dependent on preoperative risk factors (diabetes and smoking), postoperative complications (hematoma), and regional trends (West region). Rhytidectomy surgery is highly centralized and increasing hospital volume significantly decreases costs. Clinicians and hospitals can use this information to discuss the drivers of cost in patients undergoing rhytidectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

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 .