Stevens W Grant, Pacella Salvatore J, Hirsch Elliot, Stoker David A
Marina Plastic Surgery Associates, Marina Del Rey, CA, 90292, USA,
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 Jan;33(1):54-7. doi: 10.1007/s00266-008-9235-6. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine serial operative trends with patients who have experienced surgical implant deflation. In addition, the economic impact of deflation on practice caseload was analyzed. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted to examine patients who experienced deflation from 2000 to 2007. Patient demographics, implant data, and the presence of secondary (performed at explantation) or tertiary (performed later) procedures were examined. Financial information was tabulated to determine the economic multiplier effect (i.e. the expected value of revenue from secondary and tertiary procedures divided by explantation cost) of taking on deflation cases in a practice. RESULTS: For this study, 285 patients with an average age of 38.4 years were identified. The average time to explantation was 50 months. Slightly more than half of the patients (55%) had both implants replaced at the time of explantation, whereas 59% switched to silicone implants and 41% continued with saline implants. A larger implant was chosen by 54% of the patients (average increase, 82 ml), whereas 18% underwent secondary procedures at the time of explantation including mastopexy (n = 22), facial rejuvenation (n = 8), liposuction (n = 7), or a combination of the two (n = 8). Tertiary procedures were performed for 31% of the patients after their explantation/reimplantation (average time frame, 13 months). The tertiary procedures included replacement with silicone (33.7%), liposuction (24.7%), abdominoplasty (11.2%), facial rejuvenation (13.5%), or nonsurgical rejuvenation using Botox, Restylane, or laser procedure (33.7%). Economic multiplier analysis showed that the financial impact of revenue derived from implant deflation on downstream practice revenue is 1.02. CONCLUSION: At the time of explantation, replacement with silicone after saline deflation is common (59% of patients). In this study, patients who chose replacement with saline had a significant tendency to replace with silicone (33%) as a tertiary procedure. Saline deflation represents a substantial opportunity for practice development. In particular, it has a positive impact on patient retention for additional aesthetic surgical or nonsurgical procedures. Economic multiplier analysis can be used to quantify the financial impact of saline deflation.
背景:本研究旨在探讨手术植入物出现漏气的患者的系列手术趋势。此外,还分析了漏气对业务病例量的经济影响。 方法:进行回顾性研究,以调查2000年至2007年期间出现漏气的患者。检查患者的人口统计学数据、植入物数据以及二次手术(在取出时进行)或三次手术(稍后进行)的情况。汇总财务信息,以确定在业务中接收漏气病例的经济乘数效应(即二次和三次手术的预期收入价值除以取出成本)。 结果:在本研究中,共确定了285例患者,平均年龄为38.4岁。平均取出时间为50个月。略超过一半的患者(55%)在取出时更换了两个植入物,而59%的患者更换为硅胶植入物,41%的患者继续使用盐水植入物。54%的患者选择了更大的植入物(平均增加82毫升),而18%的患者在取出时接受了二次手术,包括乳房固定术(n = 22)、面部年轻化手术(n = 8)、抽脂术(n = 7)或两者结合(n = 8)。31%的患者在取出/重新植入后进行了三次手术(平均时间框架为13个月)。三次手术包括更换为硅胶(33.7%)、抽脂术(24.7%)、腹部整形术(11.2%)、面部年轻化手术(13.5%)或使用肉毒杆菌毒素、瑞蓝或激光手术进行的非手术年轻化(33.7%)。经济乘数分析表明,植入物漏气带来的收入对下游业务收入的财务影响为1.02。 结论:在取出时,盐水漏气后更换为硅胶很常见(59%的患者)。在本研究中,选择更换为盐水的患者作为三次手术有显著的更换为硅胶的倾向(33%)。盐水漏气是业务发展的一个重要机会。特别是,它对患者保留额外的美容手术或非手术程序有积极影响。经济乘数分析可用于量化盐水漏气的财务影响。
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009-1
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2004
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013-1-26
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2000-2
Am Surg. 1997-5
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009-5-30
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1995