Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two-stage expander/implant breast reconstruction versus prepectoral breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: a cost analysis

European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this retrospective study is to analyze and compare the cost of two-step breast reconstruction with expander/implant versus total prepectoral breast reconstruction (BR) with acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Patients’ satisfaction was also evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective investigation was performed on the patients who underwent breast reconstruction between December 2017 and October 2019 by Plastic and Reconstructive Microsurgery at Careggi University Hospital in Florence and divided into group A (prepectoral BR with breast implants and ADM) and group B (BR with breast expander and implant). Complications, patients’ satisfaction with BREAST-Q questionnaire, and complete cost analysis for each type of reconstruction have been analyzed and compared.

Results

Seventy-two patients were recruited for the study, divided into group A (32 patients) and group B (40 patients). The total number of complications is 8 cases out of 36 (22.22%) in the group of cases and 10 out of 42 (23.80%). For patients’ satisfaction, the statistical analysis does not show significant differences both with a parametric and with non-parametric tests. Total overall cost of expander/prosthesis with BR is 7308.83 €, while the cost of immediate prepectoral reconstruction is around 8062.76 € showing an increase in expenditure compared to the control group of 753.93 €. This difference corresponds to 9.35% of the price of prepectoral BR.

Conclusions

Our results showed no major differences among the two techniques. The minor difference in costs for prepectoral technique is justified with main advantages of a reduce number of hospitalizations and, consequently, waiting list for breast reconstruction.

Level of evidence: Not gradable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ (2013) Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24:2206–2223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman MD, Jared MG, Salzberg CA (2018) The evolution of mastectomy surgical technique: from mutilation to medicine. Gland Surg 7(3):308–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Radovan C (1982) Breast reconstruction after mastectomy using the temporary expander. Plast Reconstr Surg 69(2):195–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Boneti C, Yuen J, Santiago C, Diaz Z, Robertson Y, Korourian S, Westbrook KC, Henry-Tillman RS, Klimberg VS (2011) Oncologic safety of nipple skin-sparing or total skin-sparing mastectomies with immediate reconstruction. J Am Coll Surg 212(4):686–693 (discussion 693–685)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ (2009) Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(2):345–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Klassen AF, Pusic AL, Scott A, Klok J, Cano SJ (2009) Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 9:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. BRAXON ADM. Available online: http://quamedical.nl/index.php?item=braxon-adm&action=article&group_id=10000024&aid=57&lang=nl. Latest access: 14 May 2020

  8. Ciancio F, Innocenti A, Cagiano L, Portincasa A, Parisi D (2017) Skin-reducing mastectomy and direct-to-implant reconstruction in giant phyllodes tumour of breast: case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 41:356–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2017.11.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ciancio F, Innocenti A, Annoscia P, Vestita M, Giudice G (2018) Discussion: optimizing patient selection for direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using wise-pattern skin-reducing mastectomy in large and ptotic breasts. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42(1):340–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0995-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Portincasa A, Ciancio F, Cagiano L, Innocenti A, Parisi D (2017) Septum-enhanced mammaplasty in inferocentral pedicled breast reduction for macromastia and gigantomastia patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41(5):1037–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0868-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciancio F, Parisi D, Portincasa A, Innocenti A (2017) Innovative management of implant exposure in ADM/implant-based breast reconstruction with negative pressure wound therapy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41(5):1237–1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0850-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jafferbhoy S, Chandarana M, Houlihan M, Parmeshwar R, Narayanan S, Soumian S, Harries S, Jones L, Clarke D (2017) Early multicentre experience of pre-pectoral implant based immediate breast reconstruction using Braxon®. Gland Surg 6(6):682–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Danino MA, Efanov JI, Dimitropoulos G, Moreau M, Maalouf C, Nelea M, Izadpanah A, Giot JP (2018) Capsular biofilm formation at the interface of textured expanders and human acellular dermal matrix: a comparative scanning electron microscopy study. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:919–928

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Brohim RM, Foresman PA, Hildebrandt PK, Rodeheaver GT (1992) Early tissue reaction to textured breast implant surfaces. Ann Plast Surg 28:354–362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Susini T, Renda I, Giani M, Vallario A, Nori J, Vanzi E, Innocenti A, Lo Russo G, Bianchi S (2019) Changing trends in mastectomy and breast reconstruction. Analysis of a single-institution experience between 2004–2016. Anticancer Res 39(10):5709–5714. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wagner RD, Braun TL, Zhu H (2019) A systematic review of complications in prepectoral breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72(7):1051–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ciancio F, Parisi D, Portincasa A, Innocenti A (2017) Discussion: a new method of salvaging breast reconstruction after breast implant using negative-pressure wound therapy and instillation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41(2):466–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-016-0734-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Feng LJ, Amini SB (1999) Analysis of risk factors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(04):955–963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Anker CJ, Hymas RV, Ahluwalia R, Kokeny KE, Avizonis V, Boucher KM, Neumayer LA, Agarwal JP (2015) The effect of radiation on complication rates and patient satisfaction in breast reconstruction using temporary tissue expanders and permanent implants. Breast J 21(3):233–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cattelani L, Polotto S, Arcuri MF, Pedrazzi G, Linguadoca C, Bonati E (2018) One-step prepectoral breast reconstruction with dermal matrix-covered implant compared to submuscular implantation: functional and cost evaluation. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):e703–e711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Parisi D, Ciancio F, Portincasa A, Innocenti A (2017) Direct-to-implant breast reconstruction without the use of an acellular dermal matrix is cost effective and oncologically safe. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):820e–821e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic and Reconstructive Microsurgery, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Palagi 1, 50127, Florence, Italy

    Alessandro Innocenti & Dario Melita

Authors
  1. Alessandro Innocenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dario Melita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Innocenti.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. For this retrospective study no formal consent is required.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study. Additional consent was obtained to share their photographs.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Innocenti, A., Melita, D. Two-stage expander/implant breast reconstruction versus prepectoral breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix: a cost analysis. Eur J Plast Surg 45, 601–615 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01829-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01829-x

Keywords

search

Navigation