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

SummaryBackgroundPostmastectomy 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.MethodsA 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 intra- and extra-hospital costs derived from the initial reconstruction and those resulting from associated reoperations due to aesthetic retouches and/or complications.ResultsPatients 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 (€18857.77 DIEP vs. €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.ConclusionsCompared 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.