Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Plastic Surgery:

Millions Saved in Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction at a High-Volume Center: A Cost Analysis

Background: Within a resource-limited healthcare system, an emphasis on financial accountability is imperative. Over the past decade at our institution, there have been many operational changes employed to improve patient care during oncologic head and neck resections with free flap (HNFF) reconstruction. The objective of this study is to assess whether these changes are associated with cost savings. Methods: A retrospective cohort study that included consecutive patients treated from January 2007 to February 2020 was performed. The perspective of the third payer party was used and direct costs were considered. The peri-operative period was defined as the day of surgery and subsequent admission. Total peri-operative cost was defined as staffing, material, reconstructive surgeon, anesthetist, and admission costs. Costs are represented in Canadian Dollars ($CAD) adjusted for inflation. Results: There were 590 consecutive cases. Average age was 61 with a male proportion of 69% (n = 409). Tumor type, need for tracheostomy, neck dissection, anatomic region resected, 30-day re-operation, and re-admission did not change significantly over the study period (P > 0.05). The mean total operative time per case decreased by 4.1 h over the study period. The median length of stay per patient decreased by 4.5 days. The total peri-operative cost per patient during the study period decreased by $19,928. Net cost savings to the third-party payer over the study period was $8,142,962. Conclusion: A culture of improvement-focused teamwork allowed for several advances over the study period. These were associated with improved patient care, operative efficiency, and significant cost savings of HNFF reconstruction.

What Rankings, Ratings, and Utilities Do Breast Cancer Patients Place on Tissue- and Implant-based Breast Reconstruction?

Background

Utility analysis is well-established for comparing treatment options but challenging to assess with patients in clinical care. Preference assessment may be more feasible, but it is not yet known whether it correlates with utilities. The aims of this study were to (1) assess women's rankings, ratings, and utilities for tissue-based, implant-based, and no reconstruction after total mastectomy; and (2) explore assessment methods and correlations with clinical and psychosocial factors.

Methods

Forty patients considering or undergoing breast reconstruction completed 3 assessments-card ranking, visual analog scale, and standard gamble-and psychosocial questionnaires. Each woman rated 9 health states with case-matched images: 4 excellent, good, fair, and poor outcomes for tissue-based reconstruction; 4 for implant-based reconstruction; and 1 image for no reconstruction. Nonparametric tests compared assessment methods. Descriptive statistics summarized rankings, ratings, and utilities. Multivariable regression models assessed correlations with clinical/psychosocial factors.

Results

Median standard gamble utilities by category were 0.97 (excellent), 0.95 (good), 0.94 (fair), and 0.92 (poor) for tissue-based reconstruction; 0.99 (excellent), 0.96 (good), 0.94 (fair), and 0.94 (poor) for implant-based reconstruction; and 0.86 for no reconstruction. The standard gamble required 20-40 minutes, and some patients found it difficult. The visual analog scale required 5 minutes and correlated with the standard gamble. Psychosocial characteristics correlated with the scores; however, a more diverse sample is needed.

Conclusions

All assessments showed that women highly value breast reconstruction after mastectomy. For time-limited clinical care, the visual analog scale is brief, understandable, and clearly illustrates preferences to support shared decision-making.

Methodologic and Reporting Quality of Economic Evaluations in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations can inform decision-making; however, previous publications have identified poor quality of economic evaluations in surgical specialties.

METHODS

Study periods were from January 1, 2006, to April 20, 2020 (methodologic quality) and January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2020 (reporting quality). Primary outcomes were methodologic quality [Guidelines for Authors and Peer Reviewers of Economic Submissions to The BMJ (Drummond's checklist), 33 points; Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES), 100 points; Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC), 19 points] and reporting quality (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards (CHEERS) statement, 24 points).

RESULTS

Forty-seven hand economic evaluations were included. Partial economic analyses (i.e., cost analysis) were the most common (n = 34; 72 percent). Average scores of full economic evaluations (i.e., cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis) were: Drummond's checklist, 27.08 of 33 (82.05 percent); QHES, 79.76 of 100 (79.76 percent); CHEC, 15.54 of 19 (81.78 percent); and CHEERS, 20.25 of 24 (84.38 percent). Cost utility analyses had the highest methodologic and reporting quality scores: Drummond's checklist, 28.89 of 35 (82.54 percent); QHES, 86.56 of 100 (86.56 percent); CHEC, 16.78 of 19 (88.30 percent); and CHEERS, 20.8 of 24 (86.67 percent). The association (multiple R) between CHEC and CHEERS was strongest: CHEC, 0.953; Drummond's checklist, 0.907; and QHES, 0.909.

CONCLUSIONS

Partial economic evaluations in hand surgery are prevalent but not very useful. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Standards should be used in tandem when undertaking and evaluating economic evaluation in hand surgery.

Nipple sparing mastectomy with prepectoral immediate prosthetic reconstruction without acellular dermal matrices: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) is an oncologically accepted technique that allows to improve aesthetic results and patient quality of life. Traditionally, implant for reconstruction have been placed in a submuscolar (SM) plane, beneath the pectoralis major muscle (PMM). Recently, prepectoral (PP) placement of prosthesis is increasingly used in order to avoid morbidities related to manipulation of PMM. The aim of the present study was to report our experience with 209 NSMs and IPBR using a prepectoral approach and polyurethane-coated implant without acellular dermal matrices (ADMs).

METHODS

A retrospective review of breast cancer patients who underwent NSM followed by PP - IPBR from January 2018 to April 2021 was performed. Data were recorded in order to evaluate operative details, major complications and oncological outcomes. Aesthetic results and patient quality of life were measured by a specific "QOL assessment PRO" survey.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nine patients (269 breasts) with PP - IPBR after NSM were included. Mean age was 47 (25-73) years and median follow-up was 14 (1-40) months. A simultaneous contralateral implant-based mammoplasty of symmetrization after unilateral NSM was carried out in six of 149 (4%) patients. Implant loss was observed in three of 209 patient (1.44%); two of 209 (0.96%) patients developed a full-thickness NAC necrosis that required excision. During follow-up one local relapse (0.48%) and two regional nodes recurrences (0,96%) was observed. Patient satisfaction, assessed using a personalized QOL Assessment PRO survey, in term of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, sports activity, sexual and relationship life and skin sensibility, was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience shows that PP-IPBR using polyurethane-coated implant after NSM is a safe, reliable and effective alternative to traditional IPBR with excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient quality of life; it is easy to perform, minimizes complications related to manipulation of PPM and reduces operative time while resulting also in a cost-effective technique.

A Systematic Review of Health State Utility Values in the Plastic Surgery Literature

Cost-utility analyses assess health gains acquired by interventions by incorporating weighted health state utility values (HSUVs). HSUVs are important in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) because they include qualitative metrics when comparing operative techniques or interventions. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify the extent and quality of existing original utilities research within PRS.

Methods

A systematic review of articles with original PRS utility data was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Subspecialty, survey sample size, and respondent characteristics were extracted. For each HSUV, the utility measure [direct (standard gamble, time trade off, visual analog scale) and/or indirect], mean utility score, and measure of variance were recorded. Similar HSUVs were pooled into weighted averages based on sample size if they were derived from the same utility measure.

Results

In total, 348 HSUVs for 194 disease states were derived from 56 studies within seven PRS subspecialties. Utility studies were most common in breast (n = 17, 30.4%) and hand/upper extremity (n = 15, 26.8%), and direct measurements were most frequent [visual analog scale (55.4%), standard gamble (46.4%), time trade off (57.1%)]. Studies surveying the general public had more respondents (n = 165, IQR 103-299) than those that surveyed patients (n = 61, IQR 48-79) or healthcare professionals (n = 42, IQR 10-109). HSUVs for 18 health states were aggregated.

Conclusions

The HSUV literature within PRS is scant and heterogeneous. Researchers should become familiar with these outcomes, as integrating utility and cost data will help illustrate that the impact of certain interventions are cost-effective when we consider patient quality of life.

Systematic review of reporting quality of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations in healthcare are designed to inform decisions by the estimation of cost and effect trade-off of two or more interventions. This review identified and appraised the quality of reporting of economic evaluations in plastic surgery based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from January 1, 2012 to November 30, 2019. Data extracted included: the type of economic evaluation (i.e., cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-minimization analysis (CMA)), domain of plastic surgery, journal, year, and country of publication. The CHEERS checklist (with 24 items) was used to appraise the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Ninety-two economic evaluations were identified; CUA (10%), CEA (31%), CBA (4%), and CMA (50%). Breast surgery was the top domain (48%). Most were conducted in the USA (61%) and published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journal (28%). One-third were published in the last two years. The average CHEERS checklist compliance score was 15 (63%). The average CHEERS checklist compliance score per type of evaluation was 19 (77%) for CUA, 17 (70%) for CEA, 13 (52%) for CBA, and 14 (57%) for CMA. The least reported CHEERS checklist items included: time horizon (15%), discount rate (18%), and assessment of heterogeneity (15%). Thirty-two percent of studies were inappropriately titled (i.e., methodologically incorrect).

CONCLUSION

Quality of reporting of economic evaluations is suboptimal. The CHEERS checklist should be consulted when performing and reporting economic evaluations in plastic surgery.

Immediate Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Traditional Subpectoral Technique versus Direct-to-Implant Prepectoral Reconstruction without Acellular Dermal Matrix

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

Comparing the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-Expander Implant: A Feasibility Study

Background

To determine the superiority of autologous abdominal tissue (AAT) or tissue-expander implant (TE/I) reconstruction, a robust comparative cohort study is required. This study sought to determine the feasibility of a future large pragmatic cohort study comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of AAT and TE/I at 12 months postoperative.

Methods

Potential participants were screened during consultation with their surgeon. Three health-related quality-of-life scales, the Health Utility Index Mark 3, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and the BREAST-Q were used preoperatively, 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Direct medical costs and postoperative patient/caregiver productivity loss were collected using patient diaries. Feasibility was assessed through patient recruitment rates and compliance of patients and study staff to complete required study documentation.

Results

Sixty-three patients consented to participate, 44 completed baseline questionnaires; the feasibility objective of recruiting 80% of eligible patients was not met. A 90% completion rate for patient questionnaires was seen at 1-month follow-up and decreased up to 12 months. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated at 0.77 and 0.89 for the AAT and TE/I group, respectively. Case report form completion by study staff and patient diary completion was moderate and low, respectively. Collaborating with hospital case-costing specialists to identify direct medical costs was reliable and efficient.

Conclusions

A future large-scale study is feasible. However, due to a diminishing rate of questionnaire completion, almost twice as many patients need to be recruited than expected to have adequate power. Cost data collection from hospital sources was reliable. Case report forms need to be tailored more toward a busy hospital setting.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-expander Implant following Mastectomy

Patients who had undergone both autologous abdominal tissue (AAT) and tissue expander and implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction reported satisfaction with their reconstruction. While aesthetics and quality of life are important, the cost associated with these procedures must also be considered when choosing one method over the other. The objective of this study was to determine whether AAT-based breast reconstruction is cost-effective compared with 2-stage TE/I reconstruction at a 12-month follow-up.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness and benefits of surgery-first versus orthodontics-first orthognathic correction of skeletal class III malocclusion

The aim of this study was to compare the costs and benefits of surgery-first (SF) and orthodontics-first (OF) approaches in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion. This retrospective study recruited 54 patients who received combined orthognathic-orthodontic treatment via SF or OF approach. Data collected included orthodontic time, operating time, hospital stay, and detailed expenditures. Effectiveness was defined as quality of life, assessed by Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire (OQLQ-22) before and 1 year after treatment. Cost-effectiveness was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental time-effectiveness ratio (ITER). The duration of SF was shorter than that of OF, due to a reduced orthodontic time (P=0.003). The operating time was longer with SF than with OF (P=0.015). There was no significant difference in hospital stay (P=0.868), cost of hospitalization (P=0.924) or orthodontics (P=0.171), or OQLQ score (P=0.41) between the two approaches. Cost-effectiveness analyses revealed a reduction in cost of US$ 6.43/OQLQ point and reduction in time of 8.60 months/OQLQ point gained by SF versus OF. The study findings revealed that the total treatment time was significantly shorter with SF than with OF, although the two approaches did not differ significantly in terms of total cost (P=0.979). Further studies on the cost-effectiveness of the two approaches in different healthcare systems across diverse countries are warranted.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost-utility, cost-benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost-utility analyses, and 8 cost-benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations-a trend persistent in other surgical specialties-and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery.

A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer surgical treatment may include large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery (LVOS) or mastectomy with free flap reconstruction (MFFR). We investigated the cost-utility between LVOS versus MFFR to determine which approach was most cost-effective.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to calculate probabilities for clinical outcomes for each surgical option (LVOS versus MFFR), and to obtain utility scores that were converted into quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measures for clinical effectiveness. Average Medicare payments were surrogates for cost. A decision tree was constructed and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was used to calculate cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The decision tree demonstrates associated QALYs and costs with probabilities used to calculate the ICUR of $3699/QALY with gain of 2.7 QALY at an additional cost of $9987 proving that LVOS is a cost-effective surgical option. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that LVOS became cost-ineffective when its clinical effectiveness had a QALY of less than 30.187. Tornado Diagram Analysis and Monte-Carlo simulation supported our conclusion.

CONCLUSION

LVOS is cost-effective when compared to MFFR for the appropriate breast cancer patient.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Cost Analysis of an Office-based Surgical Suite

Introduction:

Operating costs are a significant part of delivering surgical care. Having a system to analyze these costs is imperative for decision making and efficiency. We present an analysis of surgical supply, labor and administrative costs, and remuneration of procedures as a means for a practice to analyze their cost effectiveness; this affects the quality of care based on the ability to provide services. The costs of surgical care cannot be estimated blindly as reconstructive and cosmetic procedures have different percentages of overhead.

Methods:

A detailed financial analysis of office-based surgical suite costs for surgical procedures was determined based on company contract prices and average use of supplies. The average time spent on scheduling, prepping, and doing the surgery was factored using employee rates.

Results:

The most expensive, minor procedure supplies are suture needles. The 4 most common procedures from the most expensive to the least are abdominoplasty, breast augmentation, facelift, and lipectomy.

Conclusions:

Reconstructive procedures require a greater portion of collection to cover costs. Without the adjustment of both patient and insurance remuneration in the practice, the ability to provide quality care will be increasingly difficult.

Cost-Utility Analysis: Sartorius Flap versus Negative Pressure Therapy for Infected Vascular Groin Graft Managment

Background:

Sartorius flap coverage and adjunctive negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) have been described in managing infected vascular groin grafts with varying cost and clinical success. We performed a cost–utility analysis comparing sartorius flap with NPWT in managing an infected vascular groin graft.

Methods:

A literature review compiling outcomes for sartorius flap and NPWT interventions was conducted from peer-reviewed journals in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE. Utility scores were derived from expert opinion and used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Medicare current procedure terminology and diagnosis-related groups codes were used to assess the costs for successful graft salvage with the associated complications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was assessed at $50,000/QALY, and both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of the conclusions.

Results:

Thirty-two studies were used pooling 384 patients (234 sartorius flaps and 150 NPWT). NPWT had better clinical outcomes (86.7% success rate, 0.9% minor complication rate, and 13.3% major complication rate) than sartorius flap (81.6% success rate, 8.0% minor complication rate, and 18.4% major complication rate). NPWT was less costly ($12,366 versus $23,516) and slightly more effective (12.06 QALY versus 12.05 QALY) compared with sartorius flap. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case findings; NPWT was either cost-effective at $50,000/QALY or dominated sartorius flap in 81.6% of all probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion:

In our cost–utility analysis, use of adjunctive NPWT, along with debridement and antibiotic treatment, for managing infected vascular groin graft wounds was found to be a more cost-effective option when compared with sartorius flaps.

Global systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of indigenous health interventions

BACKGROUND

Indigenous populations around the world have consistently been shown to bear a greater burden of disease, death and disability than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Despite this, little is known about what constitutes cost-effective interventions in these groups. The objective of this paper was to assess the global cost-effectiveness literature in Indigenous health to identify characteristics of successful and unsuccessful interventions and highlight areas for further research.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A systematic review of the published literature was carried out. MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, ECONLIT, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched with terms to identify cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions in Indigenous populations around the world. The WHO definition was followed in identifying Indigenous populations. 19 studies reporting on 27 interventions were included in the review. The majority of studies came from high-income nations with only two studies of interventions in low and middle-income nations. 22 of the 27 interventions included in the analysis were found to be cost-effective or cost-saving by the respective studies. There were only two studies that focused on Indigenous communities in urban areas, neither of which was found to be cost-effective. There was little attention paid to Indigenous conceptions of health in included studies. Of the 27 included studies, 23 were interventions that specifically targeted Indigenous populations. Outreach programs were shown to be consistently cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The comprehensive review found only a small number of studies examining the cost-effectiveness of interventions into Indigenous communities around the world. Given the persistent disparities in health outcomes faced by these populations and commitments from governments around the world to improving these outcomes, it is an area where the health economics and public health fields can play an important role in improving the health of millions of people.

Measuring and understanding treatment effectiveness in hand surgery

Incorporating evidence-based medicine into practice is now an expectation for hand surgeons. Hand surgeons need to be able to assess associated benefits, risks, cost, and applicability of a treatment option when providing care to their patients. Using a clinical example, this article takes the reader through the three-step approach when using a publication from the medical literature on therapy. The focus of this article is primarily the second and third steps, which involve measuring and understanding treatment effectiveness.

A methodological analysis of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature using established guidelines

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility studies, common in medicine, are rare within plastic surgery despite their capability of measuring the value of procedures by considering the societal costs of improving quality of life. The objectives of this study were to analyze the design quality of the plastic surgery cost-utility literature and to identify areas of needed improvement for future studies.

METHODS

A scoring tool was constructed based on the Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. A PubMed search through October of 2012 was conducted for English-language plastic surgery utility studies. Articles were selected using two inclusion criteria and evaluated using the scoring tool.

RESULTS

A 9-point scoring tool was created, and 37 publications were selected. Their average score was 3 out of 9 points. Thirty studies (81 percent) used population preferences in utility measurements. Fifteen studies (41 percent) measured costs, but only four (11 percent) included indirect costs and only five (14 percent) applied discount rates to calculate the value of treatments over time. Three studies (8 percent) earned zero points. The highest scoring study earned 8 points.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies manifest the potential of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery. Nonetheless, they are inconsistent in applying established cost-utility guidelines, especially in measuring costs and conducting recommended sensitivity analysis. Following this simple scoring tool can help future studies achieve some necessary improvements.

Costs of regional and general anesthesia: what the plastic surgeon needs to know

Although regional anesthesia techniques seem to expand the opportunity for cost savings when executing plastic surgery procedures, cost allocation is not a simple business. Equivalence must first be demonstrated, and the patient’s perception is integral to assigning value to an intervention. Opportunity costs cannot be ignored when the plastic surgeon assumes the role of the anesthesiologist. Most importantly, the system must be modified to optimize the cost savings realized through the intervention. This article presents an in-depth look into the multiple factors that must be taken into consideration when assessing costs related to anesthesia.