We have located links that may give you full text access.
Perineal reconstruction after radical pelvic surgery: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Surgery 2023 Februrary
BACKGROUND: Radical resection of pelvic and low rectal malignancies leads to complex reconstructive challenges. Many pelvic reconstruction options have been described including primary closure, omental flaps, and various fasciocutaneous and myocutaneous flaps. Little consensus exists in the literature on which of the various options in the reconstructive armamentarium provides a superior outcome. The authors of this study set out to determine the costs and quality-of-life outcomes of primary closure, vertical rectus abdominus muscle flap, gluteal thigh flap, and gracilis flap to aid surgeons in identifying an optimal reconstructive algorithm.
METHODS: A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze the cost, complications, and quality-of-life associated with reconstruction by primary closure, gluteal thigh flap, vertical rectus abdominus muscle flap, and gracilis flap. Costs were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates (FY2021), while quality-adjusted life-years were obtained from the literature.
RESULTS: Gluteal thigh flap was the most cost-effective treatment strategy with an overall cost of $62,078.28 with 6.54 quality-adjusted life-years and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,649.43. Gluteal thigh flap was always favored as the most cost-effective treatment strategy in our 1-way sensitivity analysis. Gracilis flap became more cost-effective than gluteal thigh flap, in the scenario where gluteal thigh flap complication rates increased by roughly 4% higher than gracilis flap complication rates.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, when available, gluteal thigh flap be the first-line option for reconstruction of pelvic defects as it provides the best quality-of-life at the most cost-effective price point. However, future studies directly comparing outcomes of gluteal thigh flap to vertical rectus abdominus muscle and gracilis flap are needed to further delineate superiority.
METHODS: A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze the cost, complications, and quality-of-life associated with reconstruction by primary closure, gluteal thigh flap, vertical rectus abdominus muscle flap, and gracilis flap. Costs were derived from Medicare reimbursement rates (FY2021), while quality-adjusted life-years were obtained from the literature.
RESULTS: Gluteal thigh flap was the most cost-effective treatment strategy with an overall cost of $62,078.28 with 6.54 quality-adjusted life-years and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,649.43. Gluteal thigh flap was always favored as the most cost-effective treatment strategy in our 1-way sensitivity analysis. Gracilis flap became more cost-effective than gluteal thigh flap, in the scenario where gluteal thigh flap complication rates increased by roughly 4% higher than gracilis flap complication rates.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that, when available, gluteal thigh flap be the first-line option for reconstruction of pelvic defects as it provides the best quality-of-life at the most cost-effective price point. However, future studies directly comparing outcomes of gluteal thigh flap to vertical rectus abdominus muscle and gracilis flap are needed to further delineate superiority.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app