RESEARCH ARTICLE Rise in Microsurgical Free-Flap Breast Reconstruction in Academic Medical Practices Chanukya R. Dasari, MD,* Sven Gunther, MS,* David H. Wisner, MD,* David T. Cooke, MD,* Christopher K. Gold, MD,† and Michael S. Wong, MD* annually from 1998 to 2008, whereas autologous reconstructions de- Background: Previous studies have examined national trends in breast recon- creased by 5% per year.1 Immediate reconstructions, mostly implant struction, using various data sets demonstrating increases in implant-based recon- based, also increased by 5% yearly, with a near-doubling reported in a struction and decreases in autologous reconstruction. However, academic breast Surveillance, Epidemiology, End-Results database analysis.2 Associ- reconstruction practices have never been specifically characterized. The University — ated with this trend, a growing incidence of elective mastectomy and Health Consortium Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty contralateral prophylactic surgery in lieu of breast conservation has Practice Solutions Center database contains comprehensive, factual billing been described in several large studies.3,4 and coding data from 90 academic medical centers in the United States, Implant-based reconstructions are often an attractive option for and has been used to characterize practice patterns of various academic patients and practitioners. Primary implant reconstructions are gener- surgical specialties. ally less technically challenging, requiring less intraoperative time, with Objective: To describe breast reconstruction trends unique to academic surgical more favorable insurance reimbursement when compared to autologous practices, using the Faculty Practice Solutions Center database. reconstructions.1 More rapid postoperative recovery and avoidance of Methods: Annual data for defined breast reconstruction procedures (current donor site morbidity are also reasons that may help explain the greater procedural terminology codes: 19340, 19342, 19357, 19361, 19364, 19366, number of practices offering only implant-based reconstruction versus 19367, 19369, and 19380) performed by university plastic surgeons during the full spectrum of autologous reconstructions and microvascular calendar years 2007 to 2013 were included in the study. free flaps.5 Results: From 2007 to 2013, a 2-fold increase in the number of breast reconstruc- However, breast implants have negative implications. Over time, tion procedures was observed (from a mean of 45.3 to 94.2 procedures per implant-based reconstructions can develop capsular contracture, rip- surgeon). During this period, implant-based reconstructions and autologous 6 – – pling, implant migration, asymmetry, and implant rupture. In contrast, reconstructions rose in tandem (28.9 44.6 and 11.4 19.3, respectively), with a autologous reconstructions age more naturally with the patient and may preserved 2.5:1 ratio between the 2 categories each year. When compared to even look better over time. Recent investigations into patient education reconstructions overall, the proportion of both implant reconstruction and protocols have demonstrated a greater proportion of patients with a autologous reconstruction procedures declined, since revision and other types stated preference for autologous repairs in clinical settings.7 of reconstructions increased (11% of all reconstructions in 2007 vs 32% in For revision reconstructions of previous implant-based repairs, 2013). With regard to autologous reconstruction, microsurgical free flaps (mostly various modalities are used including autologous tissue transfer, fat comprised of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps) have supplanted grafting, implant exchange, and placement of acellular dermal matrix. latissimus flaps as the favored modality and comprised 13% to 14% of breast The use of microvascular techniques and specifically, deep inferior reconstruction cases overall from 2011 to 2013. epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps for revision reconstruction is Conclusion: In contrast to national trends, university-based plastic surgeons are also well documented.8,9 In various contexts, microsurgical free flaps performing a growing number of microsurgical free flaps as the preferred method are associated with high patient satisfaction and favorable aesthetic for autologous breast reconstruction. Whereas implant-based reconstructions outcomes.10–12 The effect has been that practices offering free flap still predominate in academic practices, the trend of increasing preference expertise have evolved into referral hubs for all types of breast toward implant-based reconstructions has slowed in recent years and revision therapy.13 Characterizing these practices can help us understand the reconstructions are on the rise. recent impact of changing patients' preferences for primary reconstruc- Key Words: microsurgery, free flap, DIEP, perforator, autologous, breast tion and emerging strategies for revision reconstruction. reconstruction, academic surgery (Ann Plast Surg 2015;74: S62–S65) OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to analyze breast reconstruction BACKGROUND practices of academic plastic surgeons using the Faculty Practice Solu- tions Center (FPSC) database. The University Health Consortium— Recent papers on breast reconstruction practices highlight the Association of American Medical Colleges maintains the FPSC database, national trend toward implant-based reconstructions. In the Nationwide which contains comprehensive coding and billing data from 90 aca- Inpatient Sample (NIS), implant-based reconstructions rose by 11% demic medical centers (comprising more than two thirds of qualifying institutions), encompassing all procedures performed at these facilities for all payer types in both inpatient and outpatient settings by individual specialty. Roughly 300 plastic surgeons (full-time, part-time, and ad- junct faculty) are represented. Previously, the FPSC database has been Received July 24, 2014, and accepted for publication, after revision, December 31, 2014. 14,15 From the *Division of Plastic Surgery, University of California Davis, Sacramento, used to characterize practice patterns of other surgical specialties. CA; and †Division of Plastic Surgery, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared. Reprints: Michael S. Wong, MD, Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, MATERIALS AND METHODS University of California Davis Medical Center, 2221 Stockton Blvd, Suite 2123, Annual data for defined breast procedures [current procedural Sacramento, CA 95817. E-mail: [email protected]. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. terminology codes: 19316, 19318, 19324, 19325, 19328, 19330, ISSN: 0148-7043/15/7401–S062 19340, 19342, 19350, 19355, 19357, 19361, 19364, 19366, 19367, DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000483 19369, 19370, 19371, 19380, and 19399] performed by university S62 www.annalsplasticsurgery.com Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 74, Supplement 1, May 2015 Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. Annals of Plastic Surgery • Volume 74, Supplement 1, May 2015 Rise in Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction TABLE 1. Breast Reconstruction Procedures by CPT Code (FPSC) Mean Annual Procedures Per Surgeon Breast Reconstruction Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Implant 28.9 30.8 28.0 41.9 42.7 42.8 44.6 19340—Immediate breast prosthesis 15.4 17.8 16.2 5.7 6.0 7.4 9.1 19342—Delayed breast prosthesis 10.5 10.2 9.1 10.9 11.8 9.2 8.4 19357—Tissue expander, immediate or delayed 2.9 2.8 2.8 25.3 24.9 26.1 27.1 Autologous 11.4 15.7 15.1 12.9 16.9 17.0 19.3 19361—Latissimus flap 9.4 12.9 12.6 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.9 19364—Free flap, microvascular 0.2 0.2 0.3 7.1 10.9 11.6 12.5 19367—TRAM flap, single pedicle 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.6 2.5 1.9 1.9 19369—TRAM flap, double pedicle 1.7 2.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 Miscellaneous 5.0 3.9 3.8 16.5 22.7 20.8 30.3 19380—Revision reconstruction 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 21.0 19.8 22.1 19366—Reconstruction, other technique 5.0 3.9 3.8 1.6 1.7 1.0 8.2 Total 45.3 50.4 47.0 71.3 82.4 80.6 94.2 plastic surgeons during calendar years 2007 to 2013 were included in the previously dominated by latissimus flaps, was more recently comprised study. Both average frequency numbers and average annual work relative primarily of microvascular free flap repairs with the highest reported value units (wRVUs) from the FPSC are presented here. mean of 12.5 procedures per surgeon in 2013. The miscellaneous cate- More recent data from the NIS from 2008 to 2011 are also cross- gory in Table 1 includes revision reconstructions and reconstructions referenced to examine the proportional makeup of microvascular using other techniques without specific designation of implant-based or free-flap breast reconstruction subtypes such as free transverse rectus autologous methods in each. In more recent years, from 2010 to 2013, abdominis myocutaneous flap (TRAM), DIEP, superficial inferior the number of revision reconstructions increased from 14.9 to 22.1 proce- epigastric artery, gluteal artery perforator, and other perforator free dures per surgeon and comprised 20% to 25% of the total breast recon- flaps. No individual CPT codes exist for these procedures; all are struction procedures overall. Supercharged TRAM with microvascular included under the general CPT code of 19364 for microsurgical anastomosis (CPT 19368) failed to reach a notable threshold (at least free tissue reconstruction of the breast. The NIS, from 2008