Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:07:51.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of reduction mammaplasty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2004

Andrew J. Taylor ,
David Tate ,
Yvonne Brandberg  and
Lennart Blomqvist
Andrew J. Taylor
Affiliation:
University of Hull Hull and East Yorkshire Primary Care Trusts
David Tate
Affiliation:
Hull and East Yorkshire Primary Care Trusts
Yvonne Brandberg
Affiliation:
Karolinska Hospital
Lennart Blomqvist
Affiliation:
Karolinska Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to provide a comparison of the benefits of reduction mammaplasty (RM) for women with heavy breasts often termed macromastia or breast hypertrophy (BH) surgery. The rationale is to provide information to allow decision-makers to make judgments about the cost-effectiveness of this intervention and make comparisons with other interventions which are commonly undertaken within publicly financed health-care systems.

Methods: Data from a previous outcomes study in Sweden is re-analyzed to derive quality of life measures, from which a mean level of benefit outcome is derived and a cost per quality-adjusted life year is calculated (cost per QALY).

Results: The low Cost per QALY suggests that reduction mammaplasty is cost-effective when compared with other treatments which are commonly undertaken.

Conclusions: The authors suggest that the evidence in favor of funding reduction mammaplasty is strong and that decision-makers review their policy in light of this new evidence.

Keywords

BreastMammaplastyQALYHealth-related quality of lifeCost-effectiveness
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 269 - 273
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blomqvist L, Brandberg Y. Three years follow up on clinical symptoms and health related quality of life after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. Accepted for publication.
Blomqvist L, Eriksson A, Brandberg Y. 2000 Reduction mammaplasty provides long-term improvement in health status and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 106: 991– 997.Google Scholar
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. 2002 The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 21: 271– 292.Google Scholar
Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. 1998 Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 51: 1115– 1158.Google Scholar
Chadbourne EB, Zhang S, Gordon MJ, et al. 2001 Clinical outcomes in reduction mammaplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 76: 503– 510.Google Scholar
Collins ED, Kerrigan CL, Kim M, et al. 2002 The effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in relieving the symptoms of Macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 109: 1556– 1566.Google Scholar
Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. 1997 Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Falcoz PE, Chocron S, Mercier M, Puyraveau M, Etievent JP. 2002 Comparison of the Nottingham Health Profile and the 36-item health survey questionnaires in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 73: 1222– 1228.Google Scholar
Goin MK, Goin JM, Gianini MH. 1977 The psychic consequences of a reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 59: 530– 534.Google Scholar
Gonzalez F, Brown FE, Gold ME, Walton RL, Shafer B. 1993 Preoperative and postoperative nipple-areola sensibility in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 92: 809– 814; discussion 815-818.Google Scholar
Gonzalez F, Walton RL, Shafer B, Matory WE Jr, Borah GL. 1993 Reduction mammaplasty improves symptoms of Macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 91: 1270– 1276.Google Scholar
Jones SA, Bain JR. 2001 Review of data describing outcomes that are used to assess changes in quality of life after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 108: 62– 67.Google Scholar
Klassen A, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Goodacre T. 1996 Should breast reduction surgery be rationed? A comparison of the health status of patients before and after treatment: Postal questionnaire survey. BMJ. 313: 454– 457.Google Scholar
Norholm V, Bech P. 2001 The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Danish validation study. Nord J Psychiatry. 55: 229– 235.Google Scholar
Sloan FAE. 1996 Valuing health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE Jr. 1995 The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey–I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 41: 1349– 1358.Google Scholar
The UK Ombudsman. 2001 The UK Ombudsman ruling on reduction mammaplasty. London; The UK Stationery Office