Comparison of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and the free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap in postmastectomy reconstruction using a cost-effectiveness analysis. A decision analytic model was used. Medical costs associated with the two techniques were estimated from the Ontario Ministry of Health Schedule of Benefits for 2002. Hospital costs were obtained from St. Joseph's Healthcare, a university teaching hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The utilities of clinically important health states related to breast reconstruction were obtained from 32 "experts" across Canada and converted into quality-adjusted life years. The probabilities of these various clinically important health states being associated with the DIEP and free TRAM flaps were obtained after a thorough review of the literature. The DIEP flap was more costly than the free TRAM flap ($7026.47 versus $6508.29), but it provided more quality-adjusted life years than the free TRAM flap (28.88 years versus 28.53 years). The baseline incremental cost-utility ratio was $1464.30 per quality-adjusted life year, favoring adoption of the DIEP flap. Sensitivity analyses were performed by assuming that the probabilities of occurrence of hernia, abdominal bulging, total flap loss, operating room time, and hospital stay were identical with the DIEP and free TRAM techniques. By assuming that the probability of postoperative hernia for the DIEP flap increased from 0.008 to 0.054 (same as for TRAM flap), the incremental cost-utility ratio changed to $1435.00 per quality-adjusted life year. A sensitivity analysis was performed for the complication of hernia because the DIEP flap allegedly diminishes this complication. Increasing the probability of abdominal bulge from 0.041 to 0.103 for the DIEP flap changed the ratio to $2731.78 per quality-adjusted life year. When the probability of total flap failure was increased from 0.014 to 0.016, the ratio changed to $1384.01 per quality-adjusted life year. When the time in the operating room was assumed to be the same for both flaps, the ratio changed to $4026.57 per quality-adjusted life year. If the hospital stay was assumed to be the same for both flaps, the ratio changed to $1944.30 per quality-adjusted life year. On the basis of the baseline calculation and sensitivity analyses, the DIEP flap remained a cost-effective procedure. Thus, adoption of this new technique for postmastectomy reconstruction is warranted in the Canadian health care system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".