RESUMEN
AIMS: To understand variation in the cost of autologous breast reconstruction in the UK, including identifying key areas of cost variability, differences between and within units and the impact of enhanced recovery protocols (ERAS). METHODS: A micro-costing study was designed based on the responses to a national survey of clinical preferences completed by the majority of plastic surgeons and anaesthetists involved in the UK. Detailed costs were estimated from macro elements such as ward and theatre running costs, down to that of surgical meshes, anaesthetic drugs and flap monitoring devices. RESULTS: The largest variation in cost arose from postoperative location and length of stay, preoperative imaging and flap monitoring strategies. Plastic surgeon costs varied from £1282 to £3141, whereas anaesthetic costs were between £32 and £151 (not including salary). Estimated cost variation within units was up to £893 per case. Units with ERAS had significantly lower total costs than those without (pâ¯<â¯0.05). CONCLUSION: This study reveals significant cost variation in breast reconstruction in the UK based on clinician preferences. Many areas of practice driving this variation lack strong evidence of any clinical advantage. The total cost of a deep inferior epigastric perforator in the majority, if not all units, likely surpasses the national tariff for reimbursement, particularly when considering additional resource demand for immediate and bilateral breast reconstruction, as well as future symmetrisation procedures. Whilst units should look to streamline costs through ERAS, there should also be a realistic tariff that promotes excellent care.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Mamoplastia , Colgajo Perforante , Humanos , Femenino , Mamoplastia/métodos , Colgajos Quirúrgicos/cirugía , Reino Unido , Colgajo Perforante/cirugía , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Arterias Epigástricas/cirugía , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Head and neck cancer (HNC) resection often leaves soft tissue defects and exposure of vital structures. In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of robotic surgery for HNC resections. This allows for achieving smaller defects by using a tissue-sparing approach. However, this poses a challenge for reconstruction with less space available to perform microsurgery. We reviewed the efficacy of robotic surgery in the reconstruction of HNC defects by assessing the impact on flap success and complication rates. A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Prospero, Dynamed, DARE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases. A total of 14 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 96 patients aged mean (range) 60.7 (29-87) years, undergoing robotic reconstruction. The radial forearm flap was the most commonly used flap for robot-assisted reconstruction (n = 47). Robotic graft inset was performed in 94 cases and robotic assisted microvascular anastomoses for 25 vessels. One hundred per cent of flaps survived with a total of 25 (26.0%) complications (wound healing (n = 7), fistula formation (n = 2), haematoma (n = 4), dehiscence (n = 10), and wound infection (n = 2). Seven (12.2%) patients required additional surgery for managing complications and revision of the flap. Fewer complications were seen in patients undergoing robotic-assisted microvascular anastomoses compared with open anastomoses (4.0% versus 34.2%, p < 0.05). Robot-assisted reconstruction in HNC defects demonstrates 100% success rate with minor associated complications. Our results also support feasibility in both flap inset and microvascular anastomoses. Our results also demonstrate feasibility in both flap inset and microvascular anastomoses. Significantly fewer complications were seen with robotic-assisted microvascular anastomoses compared with open anastomoses.