title: A comparison of acellular dermal matrix to autologous dermal flaps in single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The use of acellular dermal matrix has allowed for single-stage immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy at a significantly decreased cost compared with two-stage expander/implant reconstruction. The use of a pedicled autologous dermal flap in the same fashion as acellular dermal matrix in women with larger, ptotic breasts has also allowed for single-stage immediate breast reconstruction with similarly low complication rates and without the added procedural cost of using acellular dermal matrix. There have been no prior studies evaluating whether the added procedural cost for acellular dermal matrix is cost-effective relative to using an autologous dermal flap in single-stage immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy.
  
  
  METHODS
  A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify published complication rates for single-stage, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction using either acellular dermal matrix or an autologous dermal flap. The probabilities of the most common complications were combined with Medicare Current Procedural Terminology reimbursement codes and expert utility estimates to fit into a decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of acellular dermal matrix.
  
  
  RESULTS
  : The decision model revealed a baseline cost difference of $261.72 and a 0.001 increase in the quality-adjusted life years when using acellular dermal matrix, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of $261,720 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis showed that acellular dermal matrix was not cost-effective when the complication rate for autologous dermal flaps was below 20 percent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The authors' study demonstrates that acellular dermal matrix is not a cost-effective technology in patients who can have an autologous dermal flap in single-stage immediate breast reconstruction.
authors: Hanover and Lebanon, N.H. From the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, and the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.
authors: Naveen M
authors: NM
authors: Krishnan
authors: Abhishek
authors: A
authors: Chatterjee
authors: Michael M
authors: MM
authors: Van Vliet
authors: Stephen G
authors: SG
authors: Powell
authors: Joseph M
authors: JM
authors: Rosen
authors: John F
authors: JF
authors: Nigriny
mesh_terms: D062088:Acellular Dermis; D018427:Breast Implants / Q000191:economics*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016462:Mammaplasty / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000191:economics / Q000517:prevention & control; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D013524:Surgical Flaps / Q000191:economics*
references: Weichman KE, Wilson SC, Weinstein AL, et al. The use of acellular dermal matrix in immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1049–1058
references: Vardanian AJ, Clayton JL, Roostaeian J, et al. Comparison of implant-based immediate breast reconstruction with and without acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:403e–410e
references: de Blacam C, Momoh AO, Colakoglu S, Slavin SA, Tobias AM, Lee BT. Cost analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:516–520
references: Ross GL. One stage breast reconstruction following prophylactic mastectomy for ptotic breasts: The inferior dermal flap and implant. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65:1204–1208
references: Thoma A, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Veltri K. Cost-utility analysis comparing free and pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2003;23:287–295
references: Thoma A, Veltri K, Khuthaila D, Rockwell G, Duku E. Comparison of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap and free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap in postmastectomy reconstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1650–1661
references: Liu AS, Kao HK, Reish RG, Hergrueter CA, May JW Jr, Guo L. Postoperative complications in prosthesis-based breast reconstruction using acellular dermal matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:1755–1762
references: Salzberg CA. Nonexpansive immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular tissue matrix graft (AlloDerm). Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:1–5
references: Zienowicz RJ, Karacaoglu E. Implant-based breast reconstruction with allograft. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:373–381
references: Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Koch RM, Chabner-Thompson E. An 8-year experience of direct-to-implant immediate breast reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix (AlloDerm). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:514–524
references: Topol BM, Dalton EF, Ponn T, Campbell CJ. Immediate single-stage breast reconstruction using implants and human acellular dermal tissue matrix with adjustment of the lower pole of the breast to reduce unwanted lift. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;61:494–499
references: Gentileschi S, Bracaglia R, Garganese G, et al. Immediate definitive prosthetic reconstruction in patients with ptotic breasts. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:144–148
references: Colwell AS, Damjanovic B, Zahedi B, Medford-Davis L, Hertl C, Austen WG Jr. Retrospective review of 331 consecutive immediate single-stage implant reconstructions with acellular dermal matrix: Indications, complications, trends, and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:1170–1178
references: Cassileth L, Kohanzadeh S, Amersi F. One-stage immediate breast reconstruction with implants: A new option for immediate reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:134–138
references: Bayram Y, Kulahci Y, Irgil C, Calikapan M, Noyan N. Skin-reducing subcutaneous mastectomy using a dermal barrier flap and immediate breast reconstruction with an implant: A new surgical design for reconstruction of early-stage breast cancer. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34:71–77
references: Colizzi L, Lazzeri D, Agostini T, et al. Skin-reducing mastectomy: New refinements. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2010;44:296–301
references: Chatterjee A, Chen L, Goldenberg EA, Bae HT, Finlayson SR. Opportunity cost in the evaluation of surgical innovations: A case study of laparoscopic versus open colectomy. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1075–1079
references: Chatterjee A, McCarthy JE, Montagne SA, Leong K, Kerrigan CL. A cost, profit, and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the operating room versus the clinic setting in the United States. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66:245–248
references: Chatterjee A, Payette MJ, Demas CP, Finlayson SR. Opportunity cost: A systematic application to surgery. Surgery. 2009;146:18–22
references: Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ. 1992;146:473–481
references: Vernon JA, Payette M, Chatterjee A. Social welfare and adolescent vaccination programs in the United States: The economic opportunities for a systematic expansion. Soc Work Public Health. 2009;24:414–445
references: Grosse SD. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare: History of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2008;8:165–178
references: Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions: Determining the incidence and significant predictors of complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1606–1614
references: Lanier ST, Wang ED, Chen JJ, et al. The effect of acellular dermal matrix use on complication rates in tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:674–678