The Cost Effectiveness of the DIEP Flap Relative to the Muscle-Sparing TRAM Flap in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap has gained notoriety because of its proposed benefit in decreasing donor-site morbidity but has been associated with longer operative times, higher perfusion-related complications, and increased cost relative to muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. The authors performed the first cost-utility analysis examining the cost effectiveness of DIEP flaps relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in women who underwent mastectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the MED- LINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases to include studies directly comparing DIEP to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in matched patient cohorts. Eight studies were included, examining 740 DIEP flaps and 807 muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps. Costs were derived adopting both societal and third-party payer perspectives. Utilities were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis. Probabilities of clinically relevant complications were combined with cost and utility estimates to fit into a decision tree analysis. RESULTS: The overall complication rates were 24.7 percent and 21.8 percent for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps, respectively. The authors' baseline analysis using Medicare reimbursement revealed a cost decrease of $69.42 and a clinical benefit of 0.0035 quality-adjusted life-year when performing DIEP flap surgery relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flap surgery, yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of -$19,834.29. When using societal costs, the incremental cost-utility ratio increased to $87,800. CONCLUSION: DIEP flaps are cost effective relative to muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps when patients are carefully selected based on perforator anatomy and surgery is performed by experienced surgeons.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".