Lean and Six Sigma Methodology Can Improve Efficiency in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction

Utilization Fraction of Reduction Mammoplasty Instrument Sets: Cost Savings and Efficiency Opportunities

PURPOSE

Healthcare spending will account for 20% of US gross domestic product by 2028. One strategy to address rising costs is evaluating the utilization fraction (UF) of surgical trays. Utilization fraction averages between 13% and 27% among surgical specialties, yet data from plastic surgery are lacking.

METHODS

This prospective observational study assessed UF of surgical instruments in all reduction mammoplasty performed at 2 sites in the same healthcare system over a 6-month period. Site 1 is a tertiary hospital and site 2, an outpatient surgical center. Utilization fraction was calculated as percent fraction of used, or if operating surgeons touched them, to opened instruments. A new surgical tray was created by removing instruments not used in 20% of cases. Reprocessing costs and savings were calculated using published reprocessing figures of $0.10 to $0.51 per instrument. Descriptive statistics and parametric variables reported as mean ± standard deviation. Unpaired Student t test was performed to determine statistical significance of findings ( P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Four plastic surgeons performed 37 procedures, 11 at site 1 and 26 at site 2. At site 1, 112 instruments are opened in one tray with 53 unique and 59 duplicates. At site 2, 155 instruments are opened in 2 trays with 58 unique, 20 shared, and 77 duplicates. Instrument user did not vary by site ( P = 0.446), with 19 ± 3 instruments and 17 ± 3 instruments used per case; however, UF varied significantly ( P < 0.0001) with average UF of 16.6% ± 2.8% and 11.5% ± 1.7% at sites 1 and 2, respectively. Estimated reprocessing costs per case are currently $11.20 to $57.12 at site 1 and $15.50 to $79.05 at site 2, with unused instruments accounting for $9.34 to 47.64 and $13.72 to $69.96, respectively. The new surgical tray includes 32 instruments, 18 unique and 14 duplicates, with estimated reprocessing cost of $3.20 to $16.32 per case. Adoption would reduce reprocessing costs by approximately $8.00 to $40.80 and $12.30 to $62.73 per case at sites 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite studying a single, but common, plastic surgery procedure, our findings reveal consistency in excessive appropriation of instruments between sites with values similar to those in the literature. These findings exemplify a cost-saving opportunity at our institution and chance to optimize UF for other high-volume plastic surgery procedures.

Operative Efficiency in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Reconstruction: Key Concepts and Implementation

The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap has become one of the most popular approaches for autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy. As much of health care has moved to a value-based approach, reducing complications, operative time, and length of stay in deep inferior flap reconstruction is becoming increasingly important. In this article, we discuss important preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations to maximize efficiency when performing autologous breast reconstruction and offer tips on how to handle certain challenges.

Optimizing Unilateral Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study

ABSTRACT

Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery commonly involves multiday hospitalization, although data suggest 95% of complications after unilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction occur within the first 24 hours. The aim of this study was to decrease hospitalization time and optimize care of patients undergoing unilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Our study followed Six Sigma's DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) framework. First, we delineated the stakeholders involved in the process and defined workgroups based on temporal relation to the operation. We measured performance according to project SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time bound) goals and subsequently conducted an analysis of inefficiencies. We then created new interventions for quality improvement. Control will entail ongoing monitoring to ensure progress is sustained after study completion. Our interventions lasted 6 months and included 70 patients. By actively striving to advance patients through postoperative milestones during their inpatient stay and creating an outpatient nursing roadmap including aspects of inpatient care, we decreased the median length of stay from 67.8 to 44.8 hours ( p < .001). After receiving nursing instruction, 77% of patients agreed that they felt ready to be discharged. Our study suggests that the DMAIC framework can decrease hospitalization time after DIEP surgery and spare resources for additional patients.