A comparison of long-term cost and clinical outcomes between the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis and autologous deep inferior epigastric flap methods for breast reconstruction in a public hospital

Background: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction involves the use of large amounts of hospital resources. This study provides comparative data on the clinical results and long-term economic costs of two methods of breast reconstruction in a public hospital. Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the costs incurred by delayed unilateral breast reconstruction performed using either the two-stage sequence expander/prosthesis (E-P) or autologous deep inferior epigastric flap (DIEP) method during 2005-2013 in 134 patients. The major evaluated variables included previous clinical records, history of radiotherapy, and number of surgical procedures. Total costs accounted for both direct intraand extra-hospital costs derived from the initial reconstruction and those resulting from associated reoperations due to aesthetic retouches and/or complications. Results: Patients undergoing E-P reconstruction required a higher number of surgery sessions to complete the reconstruction (3.07 vs. 2.32, p < 0.001) and showed higher rates of surgery-related complications (40.29% vs. 32.82%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two surgical methods in terms of total costs ((sic)18857.77 DIEP vs. (sic)20502.08 E-P; p = 0.89). In the E-P cohort, active smoking and history of radiotherapy were statistically significant risk factors of complications. In the DIEP group, only active smoking was significantly associated with complications. Conclusions: Compared to the E-P method, breast reconstruction using the DIEP method is more cost-effective and involves fewer serious complications that result in reconstruction failure or undesirable aesthetic results. E-P reconstruction presents a higher number of complications that may cause surgical failure or poor outcomes. (C) 2015 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.