ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
The Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols in Abdominally Based Autologous Breast Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. 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.
- Liposomal bupivacaine after reduction mammaplasty: is it worth the shot? A single-blind, breast-split randomized clinical trial.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane blocks for autologous breast reconstruction.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Improving the Patient Experience in Breast Reconstruction: ERAS and Beyond.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. Further, we reviewed the use of liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks in abdominal autologous reconstruction. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus were used for literature review, and PRISMA guidelines were followed. Included articles had full-text available, included cost data, and involved use of TAP block. Reviews, case reports, or comparisons between immediate and delayed breast reconstruction were excluded. Included articles were reviewed for data highlighting treatment cost and associated length of stay (LOS). Cost and LOS were further stratified by treatment group (ERAS versus non-ERAS) and method of postoperative pain control (TAP versus non-TAP). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used to compare the impact of the above treatments on cost and LOS. Results: Of the 381 initial articles, 11 were included. These contained 919 patients, of whom 421 participated in an ERAS pathway. The average ICER for ERAS pathways was $1664.45 per day (range, $952.70-$2860). Average LOS of ERAS pathways was 3.12 days versus 4.57 days for non-ERAS pathways. The average ICER of TAP blocks was $909.19 (range, $89.64-$1728.73) with an average LOS of 3.70 days for TAP blocks versus 4.09 days in controls. Conclusions: The use of ERAS pathways and postoperative pain control with liposomal bupivacaine TAP block during breast reconstruction is cost-effective. These interventions should be included in comprehensive perioperative plans aimed at positive outcomes with reduced costs.
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.