Iliac crest free flap versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a Chinese population.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Xinyi Zhao, Meiyu Ding, Drissa Diarra, Simin Ouyang, Hao Lin, Renbin Zhou, Bang Zeng, Lei Ma, Bing Liu, Tianfu Wu
{"title":"Iliac crest free flap versus fibula free flap for mandibular reconstruction: Cost-effectiveness analysis in a Chinese population.","authors":"Xinyi Zhao, Meiyu Ding, Drissa Diarra, Simin Ouyang, Hao Lin, Renbin Zhou, Bang Zeng, Lei Ma, Bing Liu, Tianfu Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.jcms.2025.05.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mandibular reconstruction is vital in oral and maxillofacial surgery to restore aesthetics and function after tumor resection or trauma. The iliac crest-free flap (ICFF) and fibula-free flap (FFF) are widely used, but their cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life (QoL) are debated. A retrospective study of 142 patients (2012-2018) compared ICFF and FFF, analyzing direct costs (surgical, medication, hospitalization) and indirect costs (surgery duration, hospital stay). QoL was assessed using the UW-QOL questionnaire, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. ICFF patients had shorter surgery times (370.47 ± 10.02 vs. 481.59 ± 115.77 min, P < 0.01) and lower hospitalization costs ($11,992.77 ± 2130.24vs.$14,294.74 ± 2976.95, P < 0.001). ICFF showed better QoL in appearance and emotional domains, while FFF performed slightly better in salivary function and swallowing. ICER analysis confirmed ICFF as more cost-effective, with superior QoL outcomes. ICFF is ideal for younger patients with moderate defects, offering shorter stays and improved mood-related QoL, whereas FFF is preferred for large defects. Tailored decisions based on defect type, age, and expected outcomes can optimize satisfaction and resource use.</p>","PeriodicalId":54851,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2025.05.007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mandibular reconstruction is vital in oral and maxillofacial surgery to restore aesthetics and function after tumor resection or trauma. The iliac crest-free flap (ICFF) and fibula-free flap (FFF) are widely used, but their cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life (QoL) are debated. A retrospective study of 142 patients (2012-2018) compared ICFF and FFF, analyzing direct costs (surgical, medication, hospitalization) and indirect costs (surgery duration, hospital stay). QoL was assessed using the UW-QOL questionnaire, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. ICFF patients had shorter surgery times (370.47 ± 10.02 vs. 481.59 ± 115.77 min, P < 0.01) and lower hospitalization costs ($11,992.77 ± 2130.24vs.$14,294.74 ± 2976.95, P < 0.001). ICFF showed better QoL in appearance and emotional domains, while FFF performed slightly better in salivary function and swallowing. ICER analysis confirmed ICFF as more cost-effective, with superior QoL outcomes. ICFF is ideal for younger patients with moderate defects, offering shorter stays and improved mood-related QoL, whereas FFF is preferred for large defects. Tailored decisions based on defect type, age, and expected outcomes can optimize satisfaction and resource use.

髂骨游离皮瓣与腓骨游离皮瓣用于下颌骨重建:中国人群的成本-效果分析。
在口腔颌面外科手术中,下颌重建对于肿瘤切除或创伤后恢复美观和功能至关重要。髂嵴无瓣(ICFF)和腓骨无瓣(FFF)被广泛应用,但其成本效益和对生活质量(QoL)的影响存在争议。一项回顾性研究比较了142例患者(2012-2018)的ICFF和FFF,分析了直接成本(手术、药物、住院)和间接成本(手术时间、住院时间)。使用UW-QOL问卷评估生活质量,并计算增量成本-效果比(ICER)。ICFF患者手术时间较短(370.47±10.02 min vs 481.59±115.77 min)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
22.60%
发文量
117
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery publishes articles covering all aspects of surgery of the head, face and jaw. Specific topics covered recently have included: • Distraction osteogenesis • Synthetic bone substitutes • Fibroblast growth factors • Fetal wound healing • Skull base surgery • Computer-assisted surgery • Vascularized bone grafts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信