Being someone who did advanced fellowship training in breast reconstruction, I was interested in the article in today's New York Times, "Some Hidden Choices in Breast Reconstruction".

I came away somewhat disappointed. The article tangentially discusses the issue of some advanced breast reconstruction techniques and how they aren't always offered or discussed by surgeons. It mostly centers around some of the more advanced microsurgical breast reconstructions using what are called "perforator flaps", which are much more laborious then traditional muscle flap surgeries or implant based reconstruction techniques. Those operations are very elegant, lengthy, and complex cases whose "true value" is hard to demonstrate either in outcome data or to bean counters (who just pay attention to how much things cost). The editorial tone is basically suggesting that there's some conspiracy to not talk about these procedures to patients and that these advanced procedures are the most ideal reconstruction.

I have a few thoughts on this

1. I touched upon the resources and cost to the system of demanding the most exotic types of surgeries for all comers last October 2007 entitled "A Breast Reconstruction Lawsuit - Can We afford Cadillacs for all?" which involved a patient suing her insurer for NOT covering a redo operation with one of the perforator microsurgical flaps discussed in the article.

I asked the question then:

In a scenario like the one involved here (lawsuit over non-coverage), should someone have the right to demand complex and expensive surgery when less expensive options are available?

I'm conflicted here. It does not seem completely outrageous to me for this company to deny this request or at least ask the patient to pay part of the balance difference given the particulars as I understand them. She had an acceptable reconstruction with implants, and needs a quick & relatively inexpensive surgery to maintain her result. In other countries with state-funded ("universal") health care programs, I suspect there's no way in hell this would be approved. In an era of cost-containment, all health care costs are going to be scrutinized and there will be hard choices to make. Luxuries like exotic breast reconstruction almost two decades after the initial surgery seem hard to justify in that context

We just cannot afford the most exotic procedures and technologies for every indication in every patient. Complicating this issue with breast surgery is that these types of procedures are arguably cosmetic procedures rather then functional surgeries (ie. a reconstructed breast reproduces a secondary sex characteristic but does not lactate). As a society in the US, we've come treat this topic differently through legislation guaranteeing breast reconstruction after mastectomy. This did not however, promise funding however, and the savaging of reimbursement for the long procedures and large amount of aftercare have functionally served to ration patients access to breast reconstruction.

2. Surgeries involving your own tissue have significantly more morbidity up front then tissue expander/implant procedures. They are not appropriate for everyone, particularly the very fit, smokers, obese patients, or the elderly. The complications from these operations can be MUCH more spectacular then expander procedures.

In general, I think TRAM, DIEP, and other described flaps are best reserved for young patients with small-medium breasts who are only having one sided mastectomies. The benefit in them is the natural "aging" of the flap more like the remaining breast. For bilateral mastectomies I (and most surgeons) think it is an absolute no-brainer to use tissue expanders in most patients in terms of recovery, cost, and symmetric result of the reconstruction. The improvements in implant designs that we should have available this winter make this an even stronger recommendation for most patients. Surgeon's who

I'm trained in just about everything, but I do implant based reconstruction on probably 7 or 8 out of ten patients as it's the best choice for most people. Keep in mind, that's coming from someone (me) who's favorite operations are TRAM's and Latissimus breast reconstruction. IF you look at the rest of the world, similar % of patients are reconstructed in this fashion which I think represents a collective pragmatic balancing of costs and benefits.

Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition

Today's entry is kind of an "inside baseball" thought that occured to me reading an article on medicine.

There was a breathless article on the news wire "Participants Left Uninformed in Some Halted Medical Trials" (syndicated from a New York Times story) earlier this week about the fate of patients who were enrolled in clinical trials for devices or drugs that had been discontinued. In many instances these patients (and occasionally their doctor) were apparently unaware of this fact. They used two medical devices as examples - vascular stents used to treat aortic aneurysms and a type of breast implant used in cancer reconstruction.

The stents are a potential big problem in that if they don't perform as designed, the patient will die. The breast implant patients (two women in south Florida) seem to be having much less an urgent issue. From the thumbnail description it sounds like the women were having some degree of capsule pain, which is not terribly uncommon especially in breast reconstruction patients who've been radiated. Capsular contracture is also the way some silicone implant ruptures present.

Implied in the NYT article is the implication that these women are "sitting on a time bomb" with their implants which is really silly and makes the juxtaposition from the stents scenario kind of ridiculous. In this instance, I'm not sure you'd do anything at all different for these women other then checking for rupture. No one would recomend "prophylactic" removal of those implants in the abscence of documented rupture, particularly if the implants were less then 10 years old. We have plenty of information about the treatment of silicone breast implant ruptures, and it's well established that the problems you get are local issues to the chest wall. A capsular contracture or ruptured implant is it's own issue, but to hold it up next to potential life-threatening device failures misses the real serious problems with medical devices and their surveillance.

They don't really go into much detail other then identifying the implant manufacturer, Allergan, and that the particular implant had been discontinued recently (~2005). If I had to guess, it's probably the Inamed "Style 153" implant these women had, which was an anatomically shaped silicone gel device that preceded the more advanced Style 410 "gummy bear" implants. Those implants, which were voluntarily pulled from the market by the manufacturer during their approval process negotiations with FDA for their conventional type of silicone gel breast implants.

The style 153 implant had an innovative "double lumen" core that had an apparent higher failure rate when you studied them on MRI scans (the best test for rupture). Confusing the issue is the resemblance of the double shell for some of the described signs of intracapsular implant rupture which is well described in this full text American Journal of Radiology article. There are a great many surgeons who strongly believe MRI's (or at least the radiologists reading them) have a tendency to over-estimate ruptures, particularly with this specific implant. At the end of the day Inamed made the decision in 2005 to "cut bait" on such a minor product to better their chances of FDA approval for their other products. The style 153 was a good implant for it's time, but it really was just a transitional model to the form-stable devices like the 410.


* Below is an MRI showing the characteristic "double lumen" sign confused for rupture occasionally with style 153 device

Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition

From my favorite New York Times columnist, Natasha Singer, comes the story "Botox Appointments Faster Than for Moles, Study Finds". This is similar to a story from MSNBC last year "The Dermatologist won't see you now."

Basically it highlights the September Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology article which published an "expose" on how it is easier to get a Dermatologist to return your call if they think you're going to schedule a BOTOX injection versus getting an appointment to have an irregular mole evaluated for skin cancer.

What was the difference?

More the three weeks delay on average (8 days versus 26 days).

Is this surprising?

Only in the sense that it only took 3 weeks to get in to a dermatologist for a mole to get looked at. Keep in mind that some other similar surveys have found much longer waits. For example almost 47 days in Syracuse, N.Y., 48 days in Phoenix and a whopping 73 days in Boston.

The amount of dermatologists being trained in the US has been artificially suppressed for many years. I saw reference somewhere to the fact that the number of dermatology residency training programs has remained stable for almost three decades with about 300 training positions. It's led to a significant backlog of people being able to be evaluated for cancers as the baby boom approaches AARP status, this volume of patients is expected to explode.

What's more, many of the medical students going into dermatology have no interest in general dermatology or treating skin cancers at all. It's been estimated that there's been almost a 50 percent shift in effort away from medical and pediatric dermatology. If you browse chat-rooms of medical students interested in derm, it's clear that many would like to set up clinics doing nothing but lasers, injectable skin fillers, and BOTOX. In a practice survey of dermatologists I found, younger women going into dermatology spent almost 20% less time seeing patient then male counterparts per week. As women make up increasing numbers of both medical students and dermatologists, this "contraction" of productivity is another factor likely affecting future access.

If you extrapolate that many (most) of these boomer patients will be Medicare beneficiaries, and that Medicare reimbursement could fall as much as 40% over the next few years, it seems likely that this bias towards BOTOX could become significantly larger. Expect to see some lobbying from Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistant's for greater independent roles in the evaluation and management of skin lesions. For some related Medscape articles click here.

Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition

There was an editorial in last Sunday's New York Times (next to the story on discrepancies in cancer treatment I wrote about) entitled "Sending back the Doctor's bill." which argued that physician compensation was actually the culprit in US healthcare spending. That came as quite a surprise to many of the doctor's I know. Completely missed by the author is both the expense of training physicians and the "opportunity costs" invested in becoming a Doctor by highly educated people in their early twenties.

For sake of comparison I'll use myself as an example:

• Tuition and living expenses during college ~ $150,000


• Tuition and living expenses during medical school ~ $85,000


• Average wage during my intern year in 1998 ~ $5.80 /hour


• Average wage my 8th year in surgical training in 2005 ~ $9.75 /hour


• Spending ages 22-35 in the library or hospital ~ PRICELE$$

It was not rare to have contemporaries owe more then $250,000 in loans during residency that was accumulating interest at 8%+. Despite commanding salaries that sound impressive, many physicians will not be able to retire that debt until well into their 60's.

The wonderful Surgeon's Blog by Sid Schwab touched on this the other day in a post called "Times Two." which is excellent reading. Dr. Schwab is a general surgeon nearing retirement age who writes the most engaging perspective on surgery I've yet to find on the Internet. He writes,

"Working hard for its own sake, striving for excellence without any tangible recognition will be seen in some -- but hardly most-- doctors if they go on a salary. Because, unsurprisingly (or maybe surprisingly, to pundits) that's not how it works in real life. I've been in the military, and I've worked at VA hospitals. Try getting a case on after three p.m. Try getting a lab test or Xray thenabouts. Work another patient into a crowded schedule? Stay through lunch, after hours, come in early? Sorry. That's what ERs are for. If Alex Berenson (the NYT editorialist) is ok with it, so am I. Sleep, I've discovered, can be a pleasant thing."

Back to the NYT..................Princeton University economics profess, Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, pretty much the "go to guy" for health care economic theory responded with a letter that was published today:

In “Sending Back the Doctor’s Bill” (Week in Review, July 29), you compare the incomes of American physicians with those earned by doctors in other countries and suggest that American doctors seem overpaid.A more relevant benchmark, however, would seem to be the earnings of the American talent pool from which American doctors must be recruited.

Any college graduate bright enough to get into medical school surely would be able to get a high-paying job on Wall Street. The obverse is not necessarily true. Against that benchmark, every American doctor can be said to be sorely underpaid.

Besides, cutting doctors’ take-home pay would not really solve the American cost crisis. The total amount Americans pay their physicians collectively represents only about 20 percent of total national health spending. Of this total, close to half is absorbed by the physicians’ practice expenses, including malpractice premiums, but excluding the amortization of college and medical-school debt.

This makes the physicians’ collective take-home pay only about 10 percent of total national health spending. If we somehow managed to cut that take-home pay by, say, 20 percent, we would reduce total national health spending by only 2
percent, in return for a wholly demoralized medical profession to which we so often look to save our lives. It strikes me as a poor strategy.

As Dr. Reinhardt points out, the low lying fruit in cost-containment (ie. physician reimbursement) was strip mined by the HMO movement and Medicare over 15 years ago. There is wide-spread disenchantment and lack of job satisfaction among physicians that threatens to split wide open over further aggressive pay cuts. You don't have to be a Nobel prize winning economist to understand the inevitable brain drain and service problems you'd create.





Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition

There's an article in the today's (Sunday) New York Times "Cancer Patients, Lost in a Maze of Uneven Care" that hit home to me. It lays out the difficulty for patients in finding the right doctors and the correct treatment when you have cancer.

The article highlights some consensus statements on general principles of cancer treatment by the National Comprehensive Center Network. This information is useful to get your feet wet on learning about cancer treatment and can be found here. Several specialists at super-tertiary cancer programs comment on the "shocking" lack of standardized care in many instances in how common cancers are treated. Implicit in some of these statements is the notion that you have to go to some super-duper place like Memorial Sloan-Kettering (MSK) in NYC or MD-Anderson in Houston,TX for cancer treatment.

This is an absolutely ridiculous idea to me in most instances, except for certain surgical procedures which are only done commonly by a handful of super tertiary specialists. Post-operative morbidity & mortality for some of these procedures seems to directly correlate with volume, and volume tends to accumulate in small numbers of hands. However, I work commonly with community surgeons (a number of whom trained at places like MSK) who do higher numbers of these cases then the local super sized University-based teaching hospital.

Cancers of the liver, stomach, esophagus, pancreas, brain, and advanced head and neck tumors are the ones where I think you may be better off finding one of these specialists. For breast or colon cancer it's asinine to suggest you get better surgical treatment. For chemotherapy or radiation therapy the same "cookbook" for standard treatment exists whether you're in Manhattan or Mobile,AL and you shouldn't need to travel for it. Certain investigational trials (which again aren't standard and weren't the focus of the NYT article, may require you to go to regional cancer centers)

There's a patient in the article with aggressive stage IV colon cancer with liver spread who was (appropriately I think) counseled on the futility of extra aggressive chemotherapy and suggested a palliative regimen. She's used as an example of "under treatment" when she visits a referral center in Seattle that later used more then twenty cycles of chemotherapy to likely extend her life by less then a year and subsequently went to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore for what sounds like an ill-advised radical liver resection. Ironically my little brother is actually an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins.

Even more ironic, is that last week I authored a section about surgical treatment of liver metastasis in the colon cancer entry on Wikipedia. Small world, eh?

No mention is made of exactly how gruelling this kind of therapy is, nor is there any perspective of the costs of treatment to the system. This was over $400,000 of dollars more expensive then what was recommended by her first oncologist. In an aside to the debate over "Sicko" and government health systems, you can bet that this treatment would not be subsidized by universal health care systems in most of the rest of the world.

As part of the food-chain of the oncology system, most often for breast and skin cancer, I see this all the time. One of the frustrations of breast reconstruction is trying to read the tea leaves about what kind of chemotherapy, radiation, and mastectomy a patient will receive. Variations in any of these can dramatically affect the quality of reconstruction, which is more of a tertiary concern from an oncology perspective but is often the most important from the patients perspective.

I'm just a "dumb skin doctor" these days but in scanning the NCCN recommendations on breast cancer treatment, I found a number of statements I thought either wrong, misleading, or at least up for debate. In particular they seem to be rather eager to irradiate people (for little or no benefit) and still wedded to the idea of "lumpectomy for all". When younger women, whom generally have aggressive tumor characteristics, are made to understand that (at approaching two decades follow up) between 15-19% of people treated with lumpectomy and radiation may have local recurrence of their invasive breast cancer, the rationale and enthusiasm for breast conservation diminishes sharply.

Plastic surgeons are particularly tuned in to the problems of radiation as we inherit them for reconstruction. By and large, if you considering a lumpectomy with radiation, you do not want to ask a Plastic Surgeon's opinion of it as we disproportionately see the complications. That's a post for another day.

Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition

The syndicated New York Times piece out this last week on Plastic Surgery/aesthetic medicine blogs is the second story I've been interviewed for about about blogging.

The other, a cover story in Plastic Surgery News (a publication of the Amer. Society of Plastic Surgery) titled "Battle of the blogs Negative web logs targeting surgeons increasing – but tools to fight them are available." can be read full-text here.

While it's nice to be noticed, I think I'm characterized in the NYT as a little more Ralph Nader-ish then with the voice/tone that I actually write with. Over the next week or two, I think I'd like to touch on a few things that patients have misconceptions about when they come see a Plastic Surgeon.

Cheers!
Rob

Readmore »»  

Wat ch Full Length : High Definition