Titre
Breast Reconstruction: Economic Impact Swiss Health Insurance System.
Type
article
Institution
UNIL/CHUV/Unisanté + institutions partenaires
Périodique
Auteur(s)
Martin, J.
Auteure/Auteur
di Summa, P.G.
Auteure/Auteur
Raffoul, W.
Auteure/Auteur
Koch, N.
Auteure/Auteur
Liens vers les personnes
Liens vers les unités
ISSN
2305-6320
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
2022-12-16
Volume
9
Numéro
12
Première page
64
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
Considering present concerns about healthcare costs and the lack of evidence and published articles on breast reconstruction costs in Switzerland, we retrospectively investigated charges to the Swiss healthcare system for different breast reconstruction procedures at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois.
We selected all hospitalized patients at the University Hospital who underwent a "total" delayed breast reconstruction from January 2012 to December 2015. Analysis included 72 women who underwent autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Three main breast reconstruction techniques were included: Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (n = 46) autologous flap reconstruction, Tissue Expander followed by Implant (n = 12) and pedicled Latissimus Dorsi (n = 12) flap with or without tissue expander and implant (n = 7). For all different groups, the global costs of reconstruction and total number of required operations were statistically compared.
Global costs for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction were 29,728 ± 1892 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean), while Tissue Expander reconstruction showed a significantly higher global cost, reaching an average of 44,313 ± 5553 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean). LD showed a similar cost, compared to the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction (29,813 ± 3637 CHF), increasing when including an implant (37,688 ± 4840 CHF). No significant differences in the number of interventions were detected.
These data show that autologous breast reconstruction (DIEP) delivers the best cost ratio, with lower overall costs. Implant-based reconstructions showed a greater likelihood of complications and re-intervention, globally creating superior costs when compared to autologous reconstructions.
We selected all hospitalized patients at the University Hospital who underwent a "total" delayed breast reconstruction from January 2012 to December 2015. Analysis included 72 women who underwent autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Three main breast reconstruction techniques were included: Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (n = 46) autologous flap reconstruction, Tissue Expander followed by Implant (n = 12) and pedicled Latissimus Dorsi (n = 12) flap with or without tissue expander and implant (n = 7). For all different groups, the global costs of reconstruction and total number of required operations were statistically compared.
Global costs for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction were 29,728 ± 1892 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean), while Tissue Expander reconstruction showed a significantly higher global cost, reaching an average of 44,313 ± 5553 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean). LD showed a similar cost, compared to the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction (29,813 ± 3637 CHF), increasing when including an implant (37,688 ± 4840 CHF). No significant differences in the number of interventions were detected.
These data show that autologous breast reconstruction (DIEP) delivers the best cost ratio, with lower overall costs. Implant-based reconstructions showed a greater likelihood of complications and re-intervention, globally creating superior costs when compared to autologous reconstructions.
PID Serval
serval:BIB_1947888A1E74
PMID
Open Access
Oui
Date de création
2023-01-04T09:55:36.955Z
Date de création dans IRIS
2025-05-20T15:20:52Z
Fichier(s)![Vignette d'image]()
En cours de chargement...
Nom
36547997_BIB_1947888A1E74.pdf
Version du manuscrit
published
Licence
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Taille
562.66 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
PID Serval
serval:BIB_1947888A1E74.P001
URN
urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_1947888A1E745
Somme de contrôle
(MD5):8698f7bba8e418e7f84b210f2b9c0920