Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 151 No. 1516 (2021)

ASA score and procedure type predict complications and costs in maxillofacial reconstructive surgery: a retrospective study using a hospital administrative database

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2021.20497
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2021;151:w20497
Published
13.04.2021

Summary

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction of osseous and soft tissue defects after surgical resection of oral cavity cancers can be achieved by a single-stage procedure with a microvascular bone flap or by a two-step approach with a soft tissue flap and subsequent bone augmentation. The therapeutic approach should be selected based on the patient’s needs. Economic pressure requires preoperative risk assessment and estimation of the postoperative course. Flat-rate reimbursement systems via diagnosis-related groups with insufficient morbidity adjustments and financial sanction of medical complications might additionally cause false incentives in the choice of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the influence of the type of flap chosen for maxillofacial reconstructive surgery on the total costs. Complication rates of different types of flap surgery and their prediction by a preoperative risk assessment tool (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) were determined. Overall, the fairness of the current reimbursement system was rated.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, clinical data, and data on total costs and reimbursement of patients aged 18 years and older having undergone maxillofacial reconstructive flap surgery at the University Hospital of Zurich (Switzerland) between 2012 and 2014 were analysed. The preoperative risk was classified by the ASA score. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). Statistical analysis included Spearman and Pearson rank correlation, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests, and linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

129 patients were included in this study. Soft tissue flaps were performed in 82 patients, of which 56 were radial forearm flaps (43.4%), bone flaps in 41 patients, of which 32 were fibula flaps (24.8%), and combined flaps in 6 patients (4.7%). Patients with fibula flaps showed a significantly higher CCI and higher total costs. Higher preoperative ASA scores were significantly associated with increased length of stay, total costs and complications. Both the ASA score and reconstruction with a radial forearm flap were significant predictors of complications and total costs. Total median costs for radial forearm flaps were CHF 50,560 (reimbursement: CHF 60,851; difference: CHF 10,291) and for fibula flaps CHF 66,982 (reimbursement: CHF 58,218; difference: CHF −8,764).

CONCLUSION

The ASA score allows a reliable preoperative assessment of patient outcomes and financial burden in maxillofacial reconstructive flap surgery. The type of flap reconstruction significantly influences complications and ultimately total costs. The current reimbursement system via diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) does not take sufficient account of this fact. Adaptations are therefore needed to prevent misplaced incentives to the detriment of patients.

References

  1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Head and neck cancers (Version 1.2020). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in oncology. Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/head-and-neck.pdf [accessed 2020 May 25].
  2. Ettinger KS, Ganry L, Fernandes RP. Oral Cavity Cancer. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2019;31(1):13–29. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coms.2018.08.002
  3. Ragbir M, Brown JS, Mehanna H. Reconstructive considerations in head and neck surgical oncology: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(S2):S191–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215116000621
  4. Yadav SK, Shrestha S. Microvascular Free Flaps in Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstruction following Cancer Ablation. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2017;15(2):88–95. doi:.https://doi.org/10.3126/jnhrc.v15i2.18157
  5. Wilkman T, Husso A, Lassus P. Clinical Comparison of Scapular, Fibular, and Iliac Crest Osseal Free Flaps in Maxillofacial Reconstructions. Scand J Surg. 2019;108(1):76–82. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496918772365
  6. Benanti E, Starnoni M, Spaggiari A, Pinelli M, De Santis G. Objective Selection Criteria between ALT and Radial Forearm Flap in Oral Soft Tissues Reconstruction. Indian J Plast Surg. 2019;52(2):166–70. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693504
  7. Hafsteinsdottir EJG, Siciliani L. DRG prospective payment systems: refine or not refine? Health Econ. 2010;19(10):1226–39. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1547
  8. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941;2(3):281–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-194105000-00004
  9. Riley R, Holman C, Fletcher D. Inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status classification in a sample of anaesthetists in Western Australia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42(5):614–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X1404200511
  10. Mak PH, Campbell RC, Irwin MG ; American Society of Anesthesiologists. The ASA Physical Status Classification: inter-observer consistency. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2002;30(5):633–40. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X0203000516
  11. Sharabiani MT, Aylin P, Bottle A. Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1109–18. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31825f64d0
  12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
  13. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
  14. Staiger RD, Cimino M, Javed A, Biondo S, Fondevila C, Périnel J, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) is a Novel Cost Assessment Tool for Surgical Procedures. Ann Surg. 2018;268(5):784–91. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002902
  15. Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA. The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013;258(1):1–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732
  16. Slankamenac K, Nederlof N, Pessaux P, de Jonge J, Wijnhoven BP, Breitenstein S, et al. The comprehensive complication index: a novel and more sensitive endpoint for assessing outcome and reducing sample size in randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2014;260(5):757–62, discussion 762–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000948
  17. Ebner JJ, Mehra T, Gander T, Schumann P, Essig H, Zweifel D, et al. Novel application of the Clavien-Dindo classification system and the comprehensive complications index® in microvascular free tissue transfer to the head and neck. Oral Oncol. 2019;94:21–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.05.005
  18. Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, Ruhter J, Epstein AM. Readmissions, Observation, and the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(16):1543–51. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1513024
  19. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals--HHS efforts to improve U.S. health care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):897–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1500445
  20. Kristensen SR, Meacock R, Turner AJ, Boaden R, McDonald R, Roland M, et al. Long-term effect of hospital pay for performance on mortality in England. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(6):540–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1400962
  21. Campbell SM, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Sibbald B, Roland M. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):368–78. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0807651
  22. Ryan AM, Krinsky S, Kontopantelis E, Doran T. Long-term evidence for the effect of pay-for-performance in primary care on mortality in the UK: a population study. Lancet. 2016;388(10041):268–74. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00276-2
  23. Brooks MJ, Sutton R, Sarin S. Comparison of Surgical Risk Score, POSSUM and p-POSSUM in higher-risk surgical patients. Br J Surg. 2005;92(10):1288–92. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5058
  24. Busse R, Geissler R, Quentin W, Wiley M. Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe: Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals. 1st Edition. Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hill, Open University Press; 2011.
  25. Ellis RP, McGuire TG. Insurance principles and the design of prospective payment systems. J Health Econ. 1988;7(3):215–37. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6296(88)90026-4
  26. Fetter RB. DRGs: Their Design and Development. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press; 1991.
  27. Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS). Schweizerische Operationsklassifikation (CHOP). Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Statistik; 2011.
  28. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
  29. Tadiparthi S, Enache A, Kalidindi K, O’Hara J, Paleri V. Hospital stay following complex major head and neck resection: what factors play a role? Clin Otolaryngol. 2014;39(3):156–63. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12250
  30. Pitts KD, Arteaga AA, Stevens BP, White WC, Su D, Spankovich C, et al. Frailty as a Predictor of Postoperative Outcomes among Patients with Head and Neck Cancer. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;160(4):664–71. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599818825466
  31. Patel RS, McCluskey SA, Goldstein DP, Minkovich L, Irish JC, Brown DH, et al. Clinicopathologic and therapeutic risk factors for perioperative complications and prolonged hospital stay in free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. Head Neck. 2010;32(10):1345–53. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21331
  32. Suh JD, Sercarz JA, Abemayor E, Calcaterra TC, Rawnsley JD, Alam D, et al. Analysis of outcome and complications in 400 cases of microvascular head and neck reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(8):962–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.130.8.962
  33. Bjorgul K, Novicoff WM, Saleh KJ. American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status score may be used as a comorbidity index in hip fracture surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6, Suppl):134–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.010
  34. Dalton JE, Kurz A, Turan A, Mascha EJ, Sessler DI, Saager L. Development and validation of a risk quantification index for 30-day postoperative mortality and morbidity in noncardiac surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2011;114(6):1336–44. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318219d5f9
  35. Skaga NO, Eken T, Søvik S, Jones JM, Steen PA. Pre-injury ASA physical status classification is an independent predictor of mortality after trauma. J Trauma. 2007;63(5):972–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e31804a571c
  36. Han KR, Kim HL, Pantuck AJ, Dorey FJ, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS. Use of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification to assess perioperative risk in patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2004;63(5):841–6, discussion 846–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.12.048
  37. Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, Tait G, Wijeysundera DN. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113(3):424–32. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeu100
  38. Aronson WL, McAuliffe MS, Miller K. Variability in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Scale. AANA J. 2003;71(4):265–74.
  39. Nie X, Mattke S, Predmore Z, Liu H. Upcoding and Anesthesia Risk in Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(6):855–6. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1244
  40. Clark RM. Virtuous Coding and the Coming Revolution in Payment for Professional Services. Anesth Analg. 2016;122(1):17–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001068
  41. Andry G, Hamoir M, Leemans CR. Quality assurance in head and neck surgery: special considerations to catch up. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(8):2145–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5046-9
  42. Chen XF, Chen YM, Gokavarapu S, Shen QC, Ji T. Free flap reconstruction for patients aged 85 years and over with head and neck cancer: clinical considerations for comprehensive care. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;55(8):793–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2017.07.003
  43. Goldstein DP, Sklar MC, de Almeida JR, Gilbert R, Gullane P, Irish J, et al. Frailty as a predictor of outcomes in patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(5):E340–5. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28222
  44. Nieman CL, Pitman KT, Tufaro AP, Eisele DW, Frick KD, Gourin CG. The effect of frailty on short-term outcomes after head and neck cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(1):102–10. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26735
  45. Tighe D, Sassoon I, Hills A, Quadros R. Case-mix adjustment in audit of length of hospital stay in patients operated on for cancer of the head and neck. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(9):866–72. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2019.07.007
  46. Adjei Boakye E, Johnston KJ, Moulin TA, Buchanan PM, Hinyard L, Tobo BB, et al. Factors Associated With Head and Neck Cancer Hospitalization Cost and Length of Stay-A National Study. Am J Clin Oncol. 2019;42(2):172–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000487
  47. Vosler PS, Orsini M, Enepekides DJ, Higgins KM. Predicting complications of major head and neck oncological surgery: an evaluation of the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;47(1):21. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-018-0269-8
  48. Jones NF, Jarrahy R, Song JI, Kaufman MR, Markowitz B. Postoperative medical complications--not microsurgical complications--negatively influence the morbidity, mortality, and true costs after microsurgical reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(7):2053–60. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000260591.82762.b5
  49. Thomas WW, Brant J, Chen J, Coblens O, Fischer JP, Newman JG, et al. Clinical Factors Associated With Reoperation and Prolonged Length of Stay in Free Tissue Transfer to Oncologic Head and Neck Defects. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2018;20(2):154–9. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2017.1771
  50. White LJ, Zhang H, Strickland KF, El-Deiry MW, Patel MR, Wadsworth JT, et al. Factors Associated With Hospital Length of Stay Following Fibular Free-Tissue Reconstruction of Head and Neck Defects: Assessment Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Criteria. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141(12):1052–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2015.0756
  51. Lindeborg MM, Puram SV, Sethi RKV, Abt N, Emerick KS, Lin D, et al. Predictive factors for prolonged operative time in head and neck patients undergoing free flap reconstruction. Am J Otolaryngol. 2020;41(2):102392. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102392
  52. Las DE, de Jong T, Zuidam JM, Verweij NM, Hovius SE, Mureau MA. Identification of independent risk factors for flap failure: A retrospective analysis of 1530 free flaps for breast, head and neck and extremity reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69(7):894–906. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.02.001
  53. Hanken H, Barsukov E, Göhler F, Sehner S, Smeets R, Beck-Broichsitter B, et al. Analysis of outcome for elderly patients after microvascular flap surgery: a monocentric retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(1):193–200. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02914-z

Most read articles by the same author(s)