ArticleMedicines (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Breast Reconstruction: Economic Impact Swiss Health Insurance System.
Article in Medicines (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global Disparities in Insurance Coverage of Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Breast cancer patients' postoperative outcomes in nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction with subpectoral implant placement: a single center experience.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Abdominal-Based Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: How to Inset the Flap to Maximize the Aesthetic Result-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsidering present concerns about healthcare costs and the lack of evidence and published articles on breast reconstruction costs in Switzerland, we retrospectively investigated charges to the Swiss healthcare system for different breast reconstruction procedures at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois.
methodsWe selected all hospitalized patients at the University Hospital who underwent a "total" delayed breast reconstruction from January 2012 to December 2015. Analysis included 72 women who underwent autologous or implant-based reconstructions. Three main breast reconstruction techniques were included: Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (n = 46) autologous flap reconstruction, Tissue Expander followed by Implant (n = 12) and pedicled Latissimus Dorsi (n = 12) flap with or without tissue expander and implant (n = 7). For all different groups, the global costs of reconstruction and total number of required operations were statistically compared.
resultsGlobal costs for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction were 29,728 ± 1892 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean), while Tissue Expander reconstruction showed a significantly higher global cost, reaching an average of 44,313 ± 5553 CHF (avg ± Std. Error of Mean). LD showed a similar cost, compared to the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator reconstruction (29,813 ± 3637 CHF), increasing when including an implant (37,688 ± 4840 CHF). No significant differences in the number of interventions were detected.
conclusionThese data show that autologous breast reconstruction (DIEP) delivers the best cost ratio, with lower overall costs. Implant-based reconstructions showed a greater likelihood of complications and re-intervention, globally creating superior costs when compared to autologous reconstructions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.