Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 20, 2025
Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Published on: May 17, 2024
Economic evaluation of flap fixation techniques after mastectomy: Results of a double-blind randomized controlled
L De Rooij1, M L Kimman2, M A Spiekerman van Weezelenburg1
1Department of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center, Sittard, the Netherlands.
Background:
An economic evaluation was performed alongside an RCT investigating flap fixation in reducing seroma formation after mastectomy. The evaluation focused on the first year following mastectomy and assessed cost-effectiveness from a health care and societal perspective.
Methods:
The economic evaluation was conducted between 2014 and 2018 in four Dutch breast clinics. Patients with an indication for mastectomy or modified radical mastectomy were randomly assigned to: conventional closure (CON), flap fixation with sutures (FFS) or flap fixation with tissue glue (FFG). Health care costs, patient and family costs and costs due to productivity losses were assessed. Outcomes were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bootstrapping techniques, sensitivity and secondary analyses were employed to address uncertainty.
Results:
The FFS-group yielded most QALYs (0.810; 95%-CI 0.755-0.856), but also incurred the highest mean costs at twelve months (€10.416; 95%-CI 8.231-12.930). CON was the next best alternative with 0.794 QALYs (95%-CI 0.733-0.841) and mean annual costs of €10.051 (95%-CI 8.255-12.044). FFG incurred fewer QALYs and higher costs, when compared to the CON group. The ICER of FFS compared to CON was €22.813/QALY. Applying a willingness to pay threshold in the Netherlands of €20.000/QALY, the probability that FFS was cost-effective was 42%, compared to 37% and 21% for CON and FFG, respectively.
Conclusion:
The cost-effectiveness of FFS following mastectomy, versus CON and FFG, is uncertain from a societal perspective. Yet, from a health care and hospital perspective FFS is likely to be the most cost-effective intervention.
