Skip to main content
Log in

Change in reimbursement and costs in German oncological head and neck surgery over the last decade: ablative tongue cancer surgery and reconstruction with split-thickness skin graft vs. microvascular radial forearm flap

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Defects after ablative tongue cancer surgery can be reconstructed by split-thickness skin grafts or free microvascular flaps. The different surgical options may influence costs, reimbursement, and therefore possible profits. Our goal was to analyze the development of these parameters for different procedures in head and neck reconstruction in Germany over the last decade.

Materials and methods

After tumor resection and neck dissection of tongue cancer, three different scenarios were chosen to calculate costs, reimbursement, length of stay (LoS), and profits. Two options considered were reconstruction by split-thickness skin graft with (option Ia) and without (option Ib) tracheotomy. In addition, we analyzed microvascular reconstruction with radial forearm flap (option II). Furthermore, unsatisfactory results after options Ia and Ib may make secondary tongue plastic with split-thickness skin grafting necessary (option I+). The calculations were performed considering the German Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) system and compared to the specific DRG cost data of 250 German reference hospitals.

Results

The overall average length of stay (aLoS) declined from 16.7 to 12.8 days with a reduction in every option. Until 2011, all options showed similar accumulated DRG reimbursement. From 2012 onwards, earnings almost doubled for option II due to changes in the DRG allocation. As was expected, the highest costs were observed in option II. Profits (reimbursement minus costs) were also highest for option II (mean 2052 €, maximum 3630 Euros in 2015) followed by options Ia (765 €) and Ib/I+ (681 €). Average profits over time would be 17 to 19% higher if adjusted for inflation.

Conclusions

We showed the development of the DRG allocation of two commonly used methods of reconstruction after ablative tongue cancer surgery and the associated LoS, reimbursement, costs, and profits. As expected, the highest values were found for microvascular reconstruction. Microvascular reconstruction may also be the primary choice of treatment from a medical point of view. However, prolonged operation times, intensive care, and hospital stay in connection with complex microvascular operations can easily turn profits into losses as opposed to the results of simple, reliable, and fast split-thickness skin grafting. The inflation rate influences profits in reimbursement systems where costs are based on a previous period of time.

Clinical relevance

Surgeons find themselves daily in an area of conflict between economic interests and medical decision-making. Due to its multidimensional aspects, the choice of the reconstructive technique should be primarily based on the best medical care for the patient. But there should also be awareness of the economic risk of all three surgical procedures.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campana JP, Arlen D, Meyers AD (2006) The surgical management of oral cancer. Otolaryngol Clin N Am 39:331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown L, Rieger JM, Harris J, Seikaly H (2010) A longitudinal study of functional outcomes after surgical resection and microvascular reconstruction for oral cancer: tongue mobility and swallowing function. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2690–2700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith GI, Yeo D, Clark J, Choy ET, Gao K, Oates J, O’Brien CJ (2006) Measures of health-related quality of life and functional status in survivors of oral cavity cancer who have had functional defects reconstructed with radial forearm free flaps. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44:187–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rhemrev R, Rakhorst HA, Zuidam JM, Mureau MAM, Hovius SER, Hofer SOP (2007) Long-term functional outcome and satisfaction after forearm free flap reconstructions of intraoral malignancy resections. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:588–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Klein M (2012) Operationen des Gesichts und der Kopfhaut. In: Hausamen JE, Machtens E, Reuther J, Eufinger H, Kübler A, Schliephake H (eds) Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 4467–4468

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harashina T, Fujino T, Aoyagi F (1976) Reconstruction of the oral cavity with a free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Panje WR, Bardach J, Krause CJ (1976) Reconstruction of the oral cavity with a free flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yang G, Chen B, Gao Y et al (1981) Forearm free skin transplantation. Nat Med J China 61:139–142

    Google Scholar 

  9. Song R, Gao Y, Song Y et al (1982) The forearm flap. Clin Plast Surg 9:21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolff KD (2011) Radial forearm flap. In: Wolff KD, Hoelzle F (eds) Raising of microvascular flaps. A systematic approach, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Jones NF, Jarrahy R, Song JI, Kaufman MR, Markowitz B (2007) Postoperative medical complications—not microsurgical complications—negatively influence the morbidity, mortality, and true costs after microsurgical reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:1053–2060

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chien CY, Hwang CF, Chuang HC, Jeng SF, Su CY (2005) Comparison of radial forearm free flap, pedicled buccal fat flap and split-thickness skin graft in reconstruction of buccal mucosal defect. Oral Oncol 41:694–697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozec A, Poissonnet G, Chamorey E, Casanova C, Laout C, Vallicioni J, Demard F, Peyrade F, Follana P, Bensadoun RJ, Benezery K, Thariat J, Marcy PY, Sudaka A, Weber P, Dassonville O (2009) Quality of life after oral and oropharyngeal reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap: prospective study. J Otolaryngo Head Neck Surg 38:401–408

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ewers R, Hoffmeister B (1988) Reconstruction of the mandibular denture bearing area and freeing of the tongue after tumor surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 46:272–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus. G-DRG-System (2016) http://www.g-drg.de/cms. Accessed April 3, 2016

  16. GKV-Spitzenverband. G-DRG-System 2016. http://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/KH_DRG_System_G_DRG_2016.gkvnet. Accessed April 6, 2016 15

  17. ID Information und Dokumentation im Gesundheitswesen GmbH & Co KGaA, Berlin/Germany (2016). http://www.id-berlin.de/de/products. Accessed May 22, 2016

  18. Wissenschaftliches Institut der Allgemeinen Ortskrankenkassen: Z-Bax – Preisindex der Zahlbasisfallwerte (2016) https://www.wido.de/fileadmin/wido/downloads/pdf_krankenhaus/Z-Bax/wido_kra_zbax_20171027.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2017

  19. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland: Verbraucherpreisindex (2016). http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/abisz/VPI.psml. Accessed Februar 22, 2016

  20. McConnel FMS, Teichgraeber JF, Adler RK (1987) A comparison of three methods of oral reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 113:496–500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Alvi A, Myers EN (1996) Skin graft reconstruction of the composite resection defect. Head Neck 18:538–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schramm VL, Johnson JT, Myers EN (1983) Skin grafts and flap in oral cavity reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol 109:175–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown JS, Magennis P, Rogers SN, Cawood JI, Howell R, Vaughan ED (2006) Trend in head neck microvascular reconstructive surgery in Liverpool (1992-2001). Br J Maxillofac Surg 44:364–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kroll SS, Evans GR, Goldberg D et al (1997) A comparison of resource costs for head and neck reconstruction with free and pectoralis major flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1282–1286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McCrory AL, Magnuson JS (2002) Free tissue transfer versus pedicled flap in head and neck reconstruction. Laryngoscope 112:2161–2165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smeele LE, Goldstein D, Tsai V et al (2006) Morbidity and cost differences between free flap reconstruction in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: matched control study. J Otolaryngol 35:102–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsue TT, Desyatnikova SS, Deleyiannis FW et al (1997) Comparison and function in reconstruction of the posterior oral cavity and oropharynx. Free vs pedicled soft tissue transfer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123:731–737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. De Bree R, Reith R, Quak JJ et al (2007) Free radial forearm flap versus pectoralis mayor myocutaneous flap reconstruction of oral and oropharyngeal defects: a cost analysis. Clin Otolaryngol 32:275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Deganello A, Gitti G, Parrinello G et al. (2013) Cost analysis in oral cavity and oropharyngeal reconstruction with microvascular and pedicled flaps 33:380–387

  30. Twieg M, Reich W, Dempf R, Eckert AW (2014) Renaissance of pedicled flaps in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Chirurg 85:529–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chalian AA, Kagan SH, Goldberg AN, Gottschalk A, Dakunchak A, Weinstein GS, Weber RS (2002) Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck 128:892–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwenzer T, Jaehne J (2012) Patientenauswahl in Krankenhaeusern der Maximalversorgung auf Basis oekonomischer Daten. Chirurg 83:259–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Harrison WL, Bhattacharyya N (2011) Contemporary assessment of medical morbidity and mortality in head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 146:385–389

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ryan MW, Hochman M (2000) Length of stay after free flap reconstruction of head and neck. Laryngoscope 110:210–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Petruzzelli GJ, Brockenbrough JM, Vandevender D, Creech SD (2002) The influence of reconstructive modality on cost of care in head and neck oncologic surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:1377–1380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft Kennzahlenauswertung 2016 Jahresbericht der zertifizierten Kopf-Hals-Tumor-Zentren (Auditjahr 2017). https://www.krebsgesellschaft.de/jahresberichte.html

  37. Talesnik A, Markowitz B, Calcaterra T, Ahn C, Shaw W (1996) Cost and outcome of osteocutaneous free-tissue transfer versus pedicled soft-tissue reconstruction for composite mandibular defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 97:1167–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenthal E, Carroll W, Dobbs M, Magnuson JS, Wax M, Peters G (2004) Simplifying head and neck microvascular reconstruction. Head Neck 26:930–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors like to express their sincere thanks to Dr. Cintia S. De Paiva, MD, Ocular Surface Center, Department of Opthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas and Dr. Martin Widmann, MD, Departement of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Tuebingen, Germany, for their proofreading of the manuscript and critical remarks.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Hoefert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoefert, S., Lotter, O. Change in reimbursement and costs in German oncological head and neck surgery over the last decade: ablative tongue cancer surgery and reconstruction with split-thickness skin graft vs. microvascular radial forearm flap. Clin Oral Invest 22, 1741–1750 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2269-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2269-x

Keywords

Navigation