Back to 2025 Abstracts
Aesthetic Flat Closure: Assessing The Financial And Clinical Viability Of An Emerging Post-mastectomy Option
Hibo M. Wehelie, BS, Robert G. DeVito, MD, Jessica Pawly, MD, Christopher Campbell, MD, Scott Hollenbeck, MD.
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
PURPOSE: In this study, we assess the surgical outcomes and financial viability of aesthetic flat closure (AFC), an option growing in popularity.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent mastectomy for breast cancer or elevated cancer risk (2017-2022) was done. Financial data were analyzed to compare AFC with autologous reconstruction (AR) and implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Comparisons of revision rates, follow-up visits, operative time, and postoperative outcomes between AFC and mastectomy alone (MA) were included.
RESULTS: AR showed a reimbursement rate of 99.9% (263/264 cases) and an average direct margin of $8,135.18 per case, and IBR with a reimbursement rate of 98.6% (720/730 cases) and a direct margin of $4,614.20 per case. AFC demonstrated a comparable reimbursement rate of 100% (21/21 cases) with a direct margin of $7,006 per case. The average operative time for mastectomy with AFC was 218 minutes, approximately 93 minutes longer than MA (125 minutes). Both AFC (n=30) and MA (n=201) averaged 2 follow-up visits and near 0% revision rate. Rate of minor complications of AFC and MA was comparable at 17% and 15%, respectively (p = 1).
CONCLUSION: AFC is a financially viable and clinically safe option for patients choosing not to pursue reconstruction.
Financial Data by Procedure TypeProcedure | Reimbursement Rate | Direct Margin ($) per case |
Aesthetic Flat Closure | 100 | 7,006 |
Implant-Based Reconstruction | 99.9 | 4,614.20 |
Autologous Reconstruction | 98.6 | 8,135.18 |
Back to 2025 Abstracts