The use of mesh versus primary fascial closure of the abdominal donor site when using a transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap for breast reconstruction: a cost-utility analysis.
review · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 25719690.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000957.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
During breast reconstruction using the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap, the use of mesh for abdominal donor-site closure provides for a technology that potentially offers clinical benefit yet incurs an added cost. The authors' goal was to determine whether it is cost effective to use mesh during abdominal donor-site closure when performing a TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. A literature review was conducted to identify and collect published hernia and bulge rates at abdominal TRAM flap donor sites closed either primarily or with mesh. A decision tree analysis was performed. Outcome probabilities, costs of complications, and expert utility estimates were populated into the decision tree model to evaluate the cost-utility of using mesh in TRAM abdominal donor-site closure. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the results. The authors' literature review resulted in 10 articles describing 1195 patients who had TRAM abdominal donor-site closure primarily and 696 patients who had donor-site closure performed with mesh. Pooled hernia/bulge complication rates for these two groups were 7.87 percent and 4.45 percent, respectively. The use of mesh was more clinically effective based on total quality-adjusted life-years gained of 30.53 compared with 30.41 when performing primary fascial closure alone. The incremental additional cost incurred by the mesh arm when running the decision tree model was $693.14. This difference in cost, divided by the difference in clinical efficacy (0.12), results in an incremental cost-utility ratio value of $5776.17 per quality-adjusted life-year gained when using mesh, making it cost effective (when using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000). One-way sensitivity analysis revealed the following: (1) using mesh was a cost effective option, provided that the price of mesh was less than or equal to $5970; (2) mesh was cost effective when its use led to a hernia/bulge rate less than or equal to 7.25 percent; and (3) primary facial closure was cost effective when its use led to a hernia/bulge rate less than or equal to 4.75 percent. The use of mesh when repairing the abdominal donor site during a pedicled or free TRAM flap breast reconstruction is cost effective compared with primary fascial closure alone.
Medical subject headings
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Fasciotomy
- Mammaplasty
- Myocutaneous Flap
- Rectus Abdominis