How should quality-of-life data be incorporated into a cost analysis of breast reconstruction? A consideration of implant versus free TRAM flap procedures

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 121, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 1075-1082

  Preminger, Beth Aviva ^a   Pusic, Andrea L ^a   McCarthy, Colleen M ^a   Verma, Nishant ^a   Worku, Aelaf ^a   Cordeiro, Peter G ^a,b  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST ENDOPROSTHESIS; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HOSPITAL CHARGE; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICARE; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REIMBURSEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TRANSVERSE RECTUS ABDOMINIS MUSCULOCUTANEOUS FLAP; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST; DECISION TREE; ECONOMICS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PLASTIC SURGERY; STANDARD;

BREAST IMPLANTS; COSTS AND COST ANALYSIS; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; SURGICAL FLAPS;

EID: 42949140838     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000304246.66477.cd     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Muennig, P., and Khan, K. Designing and Conducting Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Medicine and Health Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
2. Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russell, L. B., and Weinstein, M.C. (Eds.). Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
3. Pittet, B., Montandon, D., and Pittet, D. Infection in breast implants. Lancet 5: 94, 2005.
4. Inamed. 1995 reconstruction study. Available at: www.breastimplantstoday. com. Accessed December 1, 2006.
5. Cordeiro, P. G., and McCarthy, C. M. A single surgeon's 12-year experience with tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction: Part I. A prospective analysis of early complications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 118: 825, 2006.
6. Thoma, A., Khuthaila, D., Rockewell, G., et al. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery 23: 287, 2003.
7. Knight, M. A., Nguyen, D. T., Kobayashi, M. R., et al. Institutional review of freeTRAMflap breast reconstruction. Ann. Plast. Surg. 56: 593, 2006.
8. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2005 reconstructive breast surgery age distribution. Available at: www.plasticsurgery.org. Accessed December 1, 2006.
9. Arias, E. United States life tables, 2000. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 51: 1, 2002.
10. Gold, M. R., Franks, P., McCoy, K. I., et al. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: Using national measures to create condition-specific values. Med. Care 36: 778, 1998.
11. Chew, R. T., Sprague, S., and Thoma, A. A systematic review of utility measurements in the surgical literature. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 200: 954, 2005.
12. Cutler, D. M., Richardson, E., Keeler, T. E., and Staiger, D. Measuring the health of the U.S. population: Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 217, 1997.
13. Kroll, S. S., Evans, G., Reece, G. P., et al. Comparison of resource costs between implant-based and TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 97: 364, 1996.
14. Spear, L., Mardini, S., and Ganz, J. C. Resource cost comparison of implant-based breast reconstruction versus TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 112: 101, 2003.
15. Pusic, A. L., Chen, C. M., Cano, S., et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 120: 823, 2007.
16. Alderman, A. K., Wilkins, E. G., Lowery, J. C., et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 106: 771, 2000.
17. Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsky, A. S., et al. How attractive does a technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. C.M.A.J. 146: 473, 1992.