INTRODUCTION
The Unified Health System (SUS) is organized into basic health units and medium and
high complexity establishments. The entrance door to the system is the basic health
unit, which must solve the main problems with economic and straightforward measures
and act in the prevention of the disease. Medium and high complexity hospitals, on
the other hand, have specialized professionals and special technological resources1.
The division between medium and high complexity represents a great difficulty for
SUS1 managers, and, unfortunately, their vision of this area is still fragmentary, with
sets of procedures listed in the traditional “system procedure tables,” for outpatients
or hospitals. This system is often a limiting factor that mainly penalizes medium-sized
institutions that carry out many of the procedures and that, according to these tables,
would be exclusive of high complexity.
The specialist professionals who work in these medium complexity hospitals experience
that reality every day, as these places have more and more resources and specialists
from multiple areas, with great potential for resolution, avoiding most transfers
to institutions of high complexity already overcrowded. This situation happens not
only because midsize hospitals have the structure and qualification to handle many
of the so-called highly complex procedures, but also because high complexity cannot
absorb all of these cases due to the lack of vacancies.
In the context of skin tumors, cared for in medium complexity hospitals, the above
is repeated mainly in the case of malignant tumors. These are hospitals that have
the resources to operate most tumors, including the most extensive malignant tumors,
as long as they have a professional who specializes in plastic surgery or similar
areas. These institutions have a surgical center, anesthetist, and even an Intensive
Care Unit (ICU), which allows for numerous procedures. However, surgical codes in
oncology are restricted to high complexity.
Non-melanoma skin tumors are the most frequent cancer in the population2,3, and the inclusion of medium hospitals in the care of these lesions could contribute
to reducing the waiting time for referral to highly complex institutions. Unfortunately,
in addition to not receiving resources for treatment according to the codes in oncology,
these institutions do not always have professionals capable of treating these tumors
in more advanced cases. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the cost and benefits
of treating these injuries, as well as to discuss possible solutions for a better
functioning of the system.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the present study is to describe the experience of a plastic surgeon
for nine months in the treatment of patients with skin tumors in a medium institution,
not only to describe the epidemiology and results of the treatment of these injuries,
but also discussing how to optimize the care of these patients and estimate the costs
under the SUS.
METHODS
This one is a prospective cohort study carried out from January 2017 to September
2017 at the Getúlio Vargas Hospital in Sapucaia do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul. Data collection
was performed in an Excel(TM) database, with data demographics such as sex, age, surgery data, operated area, the
technique performed, pathological result, number of surgeries, among others. The financial
transfer, according to SUS tables, was estimated for major surgeries performed in
the operating room and only for malignant skin tumors. The degree of satisfaction
was measured according to the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) scale, which was applied
to part of the sample in patients contacted approximately two years after surgery.
This questionnaire consists of 18 questions whose answers are rated from 1 to 5, which
measure a global score and global, social, and health subpoints ranging from -100
(maximum negative impact) to +100 (maximum positive impact)4,5. Costs were estimated according to the codes used for each patient and based on the
SUS website with the tables available online6. These last data were compared with the exclusive codes of high complexity that would
be more appropriate for the case of each patient.
Inclusion criteria in the general cohort were all patients with benign and malignant
skin and subcutaneous tumors who consulted during the study period. Although this
outpatient clinic focuses on soft tissue tumors, patients with other pathologies such
as dermatochalasis of lid, ectropion, breast hypertrophy, exposed orthopedic plates,
and complex wounds were also treated, but were excluded from the present study. Data
were analyzed in SPSS, version 20, IBMTM.
This work was presented to the Brazil Platform and approved by the Research Ethics
Committee (CEP) number 5329, President Vargas Maternal and Child Hospital (HMIPV-RS),
designated by the National Research Ethics Commission (CONEP), under the number Certificate
of Presentation and Ethical Appreciation (CAAE) 16036719.2.0000.5329. The patients
with photos published in this work approved their disclosure through a Free and Informed
Consent Form (ICF). Patients whose data are reported here together, without the possibility
of identification, were released from IC.
Four types of surgery regimens were used depending on the case to be treated: in an
outpatient room with local anesthesia, in a surgical block with local anesthesia,
in an operating room with sedation or an operating room with general anesthesia. The
management of the patients was carried out following the “guidelines” for the removal
of skin tumors7,8, and the reconstructions were performed according to the case and based on the current
literature9-11, respecting the resources available in the Institution.
RESULTS
During the study period, 166 patients were treated, 63 of whom were excluded from
the analysis because they were patients with pathologies other than skin and subcutaneous
tumors, or patients who did not undergo surgery. One hundred three patients underwent
surgery and who had complete data for analysis.
The average age of the operated patients was 60.1 years. The presence of associated
comorbidities was found in 50.5% of the sample. The most frequent were: systemic arterial
hypertension, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and depression, most of whom had more than
one comorbidity at the same time. The average number of consultations was three per
patient. Table 1 shows the demographic data for the cohort.
Table 1 - Demographic data of the 103 patients in the cohort of patients treated at a medium
complexity hospital.
Variable |
N (%) or Mean and standard deviation
|
Gender |
|
Masculine |
45 (43.7) |
Feminine |
58 (56.3) |
Age |
60.12 (16.0)* |
Presence of Comorbidities |
52 (50.5) |
Multiple |
25 (24.3) |
Hypertension |
9 (8.7) |
Others |
18 (17.5) |
Number of consultations per patient |
|
One |
16 (15.5) |
Two |
32 (31.1) |
Three |
25 (24.3) |
Four |
15 (14.6) |
Five or more |
15 (14.6) |
Surgery Location |
|
Ambulatory |
53 (51.5) |
Surgery Center |
50 (48.5) |
Operated Area |
|
Face |
72 (69.9) |
Multiples areas |
18 (17.3) |
Members |
8 (7.8) |
Trunk |
5 (4.9) |
Reconstruction technique |
|
Exeresis and suture |
74 (71.8) |
Exeresis and flap |
21 (20.4) |
Exeresis and graft |
8 (7.4) |
Reconstruction (graft/flaps) |
29 (28.1) |
Late reconstruction (post-AP) |
9 (8.7) |
Anatomopathological Diagnosis |
|
Basal cell carcinoma |
46 (44.7) |
Squamous cell carcinoma |
9 (8.7) |
Melanoma |
3 (2.9) |
Epidermal Cysts |
13 (12.6) |
Others |
27 (26.2) |
Margins (malignant tumors not melanoma) |
55 (53.4) |
Free |
46 (83.6) |
Comprometida |
9 (16.4) |
Number of surgery per patient |
|
One |
87 (84.5) |
Two |
11 (10.7) |
Three |
3 (2.9) |
Four |
2 (1.9) |
Complications |
2 (1.9) |
Table 1 - Demographic data of the 103 patients in the cohort of patients treated at a medium
complexity hospital.
The main areas of the body affected by the tumors were the face, followed by multiple
areas as extremities and trunk (Figure 1). Basal cell carcinoma was the most commonly found tumor (44.7%), followed by benign
skin and subcutaneous tumors, including nevi, epidermal cysts, and lipomas. Epidermoid
tumors were found in 8.7% of cases, and three patients with melanomas underwent surgery.
All of the latter were in the initial stage (less than 0.75 mm thick and without ulcerations),
and only needed an increased margin, without the need for other interventions12,13. Taking into account the risk classification for nonmelanoma skin tumors of the NCCN
(National Comprehensive Cancer Network) whose criteria are set out in Table 2
14, 38.7% were low risk, 55.5% high risk, and 5.8% already locally advanced.
Figure 1 - Distribution of tumors according to affected areas.
Figure 1 - Distribution of tumors according to affected areas.
Table 2 - High-risk characteristics for malignant nonmelanoma skin tumors.
|
Low Risk ' |
High Risk |
Location/Size |
< 20mm in area L |
> 20mm in area L |
< 10mm in area M |
> 10mm in area M |
< 0,6mm in area H |
> 0,6mm in area H |
Margins |
Well defined |
Badly defined |
History |
Primary |
Recurrents |
Immunosuppression |
No |
Yes |
Prior radiation |
No |
Yes |
Anatomopathological diagnosis |
Nodular/superficial BCC |
BCC: moreaform, basal squamous, sclerodermiform, micronodular SCC: acantholytic, adenosquamous,
desmoplastic, metaplastic
|
Table 2 - High-risk characteristics for malignant nonmelanoma skin tumors.
Nine patients with squamous cell and basal cell tumors had margins described as compromised
or small. Of these, all were expanded, except one who refused to expand the margins
and another who decided to observe and did not return for the expansion. Of the seven
operated patients, two had residual carcinoma in the surgical sample, and only one
remained with a compromised margin until reconstruction, losing the graft. The latter
was the only patient who had to be referred to a high complexity center because he
was a patient with squamous carcinoma little differentiated from the temporal region,
already with an invasion of the parotid gland, locally advanced and with a poor prognosis.
He was subsequently operated in conjunction with the head and neck surgeon, who performed
a partial parotidectomy and a neck dissection. The patient was referred to radiotherapy
after resection.
More complex reconstructions with grafts or flaps were necessary in only 28% of the
total number of operated patients, with 31% of these patients opting for late reconstruction,
leaving patients with a local bandage until pathological diagnosis (PA) definitive,
followed by reconstruction around two weeks after the first surgery in the case of
free margins.
Twenty-one flaps were made that included the Limberg technique, bilobed, axial flap,
glabellar flap (Rieger), nasogenian, and triple rhomboid flap of scalp. Figures 2 to 4 show results for some of these more complex reconstruction cases.
Figure 2 - Patient with basal cell carcinoma, reconstruction with nasogenian flap. Trapdoor deformity
with spontaneous resolution.
Figure 2 - Patient with basal cell carcinoma, reconstruction with nasogenian flap. Trapdoor deformity
with spontaneous resolution.
Figure 3 - Patient with basal cell carcinoma of the nasal wing reconstructed with auricular cartilage
graft and nasogenian flap. Late reconstruction after definitive pathology. Preoperative,
postoperative photos without reconstruction with nasal wing retraction, after reconstruction
and final photos after refining the flap pedicle with reconstruction of the nasogenian
groove.
Figure 3 - Patient with basal cell carcinoma of the nasal wing reconstructed with auricular cartilage
graft and nasogenian flap. Late reconstruction after definitive pathology. Preoperative,
postoperative photos without reconstruction with nasal wing retraction, after reconstruction
and final photos after refining the flap pedicle with reconstruction of the nasogenian
groove.
Figure 4 - Tumor of the nasal dorsum reconstructed with a glabellar or Rieger flap.
Figure 4 - Tumor of the nasal dorsum reconstructed with a glabellar or Rieger flap.
Complications occurred in 16.5% of patients, which included 5 cases of wound infection,
one hematoma, one patient with persistent pain that remitted after three months, one
suture dehiscence with fat necrosis, two partial flap necrosis, two scar hypertrophies,
one partial graft loss, three trapdoor deformities that improved in 6 months, one
temporary paralysis of the temporal branch of the facial due to the local anesthetic
and a definitive paralysis of the temporal and zygomatic branch of the facial compromised
by the tumor ( patient who performed the parotidectomy described above). Figure 5 shows a case of a patient with partial flap necrosis with proper final resolution
with dressings, which shows a good result even in the case of complications.
Figure 5 - Patient with a basal cell tumor who underwent reconstruction with a rhomboid flap
that evolved with partial necrosis of the flaps, but with good final result after
care and dressings.
Figure 5 - Patient with a basal cell tumor who underwent reconstruction with a rhomboid flap
that evolved with partial necrosis of the flaps, but with good final result after
care and dressings.
Twenty patients were contacted to answer a questionnaire to calculate the GBI scale,
3 of whom had died, and nine did not answer the phone or did not attend the day of
the interview, leaving only 8 to answer the questionnaire. In these, the improvement
was shown in the four subdomains of the scale, with an average of 53.8 points on the
general scale, 75 points on the general subscale, 4.1 on the social subscale, and
18.75 on the health subscale.
Taking into account the transfers according to the SUS table for surgery and only
the patients operated on in the operating room for malignant tumors, this resulted
in 37 patients for the estimation. In these patients, the estimated cost for SUS was
349.25 reais per patient, 253.38 reais per surgery. If it were possible to use cancer
codes that are only authorized for high complexity, but that would be more suitable
for the surgeries performed, the transfer could be an average of 470.94 per patient
and 341.66 per surgery, that is, about 25% bigger. Furthermore, the standard procedures
performed in this cohort of patients, such as the removal of multiple malignant skin
tumors, the removal of lip and pinna tumors, do not find equivalent codes in the table
of average complexity, and the code used in these cases. It was much lower in terms
of transfer rates compared to those available in high complexity. Fortunately, in
the case of the graft and flap codes, the transfer is smaller, but less impactful,
that is, 10% less than the graft and flap codes after the oncological excision of
highly complex tables.
DISCUSSION
Nonmelanoma skin tumors are the most frequent neoplasty; in the USA, its diagnosis
is higher than the diagnosis of all cancers combined2. In the cohort presented in this study, basal cell carcinoma was the most commonly
reported lesion, even surpassing benign skin and subcutaneous tumors. The most affected
place was the face, followed by the extremities. The authors who have studied facial
tumors15 and basal cell tumors (BCC) 5 have found similar results to those shown here16,17. In a recent review of keratinocytic skin cancers (nonmelanoma), it is noted that
their incidence and, therefore, the costs of this disease have increased worldwide,
with an estimated risk of 20-30% of development during life in white patients, according
to US estimates7,8,18.
These tumors can be divided into high and low risk, according to the criteria proposed
by the NCCN19 shown in Table 2, translated by Hughley et al., In 201814. It should be noted that in this cohort, according to these specifications, the majority
of patients (61.3%) already had high-risk or locally advanced squamous cell and basal
cell carcinomas.
In these cases of facial tumors, flaps are preferred over grafts because they have
better aesthetic results16. As in our case series, the most affected area was the face, in the case of reconstructions,
flaps were preferred, with 21 flaps versus eight grafts performed, with only 2 of
these graft cases used on the face. In 9 cases, in which flap reconstructions were
proposed, late reconstruction was chosen only after pathology, demonstrating that
disease-free margins decrease the risk of reconstruction loss, as recommended in the
literature7,8,14,19. According to the guidelines for the treatment of skin tumors, the best indication
for many cases in this cohort would be Mohs micrographic surgery since they are lesions
with various high-risk criteria, according to NCCN14. However, this technique is not available in the institution, opting for standard
resection and late reconstruction in the case of the need for a significant mobilization
of tissues for reconstruction.
Regarding the analysis of costs, results, and degree of patient satisfaction, it is
important to clarify from which perspective this analysis is carried out20. In the case of this cohort, from the hospital’s perspective, there is a particular
financial loss for the institution regarding the care of these patients; however,
for SUS, there is a benefit in the treatment of these injuries at a medium level,
since the transfer is less than that performed at high complexity and also because
the access is fast. This study compares the transfer of SUS between medium and high
complexity, but does not estimate whether this transfer covers the real hospital costs
with the treatment of these injuries. In this context, Bócoli et al., In 201321, made this comparison, demonstrating that the internal expenditure on the treatment
of these injuries is higher than that transferred by SUS. However, in this study,
the author does not specify if the estimation was made in a medium or high complexity
hospital, he only mentions that it was in a university hospital, probably a high complexity
one. Therefore, considering the findings of Bócoli et al., In 201321, the loss of the institution of medium complexity is probably even more significant
than that shown in this study in highly complex hospitals.
Regarding the results, there was a low rate of complications, especially considering
that it is a cohort with several tumors with a high risk of recurrence and because
it is a population with a high average age and the presence of comorbidities in 50.5%
of the sample. Besides, according to the questionnaire on the degree of satisfaction
that was applied to part of the patients, there is an improvement in all the domains
of the questionnaire, mainly in the general scores and the general scores. Furthermore,
regarding resolution capacity, we highlight that only one patient could not be treated
with medium complexity, being referred to a highly complex hospital. Therefore, from
a population perspective, the benefits are many.
CONCLUSION
Because of the preceding and considering that nonmelanoma skin cancer is a disease
that is increasing worldwide and in Brazil, it is concluded that this disease has
and will continue to have a critical impact on the Unified Health System that should
seek alternatives for allowing access to these patients for effective treatment, in
this context, the inclusion of medium-sized hospitals in the care of these patients
seems to be a great strategy to optimize the operation of the system; however, the
feasibility of this routine action at this level of health care should undergo a review
in the SUS procedure tables, which should be updated, since in practice several procedures
of exclusivity of high complexity are already performed in medium complexity, through
replacement codes that mostly do not contemplate the real complexity of the procedures
performed, with values received 25% lower.
The presence of qualified professionals to adequately treat this problem, such as
the plastic surgeon at the medium level of complexity, can significantly contribute
to resolving this high-incidence disease without referral to high complexity. According
to the cohort presented here, the degree of resolution of cases of medium complexity
was excellent, and the routine inclusion of medium-sized institutions in the treatment
of skin cancers would collaborate with better patient care and better SUS functioning.
REFERENCES
1. Ministério da Saúde (BR). Conselho Nacional de Secretários de Saúde (CONASS). Assistência
de média e alta complexidade no SUS. Brasília (DF): CONASS; 2007.
2. Nehal KS, Bichakjian CK. Update on keratinocyte carcinomas. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul;379(4):363-74.
3. Brandt MG, Moore CC. Nonmelanoma skin cancer. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2019
Feb;27(1):1-13.
4. Kotzampasakis D, Piniara A, Themelis S, Kotzampasakis S, Gabriel E, Maroudias N, et
al. Quality of life of patients who underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty: 100 cases assessed
with the Glascow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope. 2017 Sep;127(9):2017-25.
5. Hornos A. Correção de orelha de abano por técnica combinada: análise de resultados
e alteração da qualidade de vida. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2001 Jan;28(3):406-15.
6. Ministério da Saúde (BR). Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos, Medicamentos
e OPME do SUS (SIGTAP). Tabela unificada [Internet]. Brasília (DF): SIGTAP, 2019;
Mai;1. Available from: http://sigtap.datasus.gov.br/Tabela-unificada/app/sec/inicio.jsp
7. Kim JYS, Kozlow JH, Mittal B, Moyer J, Olencki T, Rodgers P. Guidelines of care for
the management of basal cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 Mar;78(3):540-59.
8. Alam M, Armstrong A, Baum C, Bordeaux JS, Brown M, Busam KJ, et al. Guidelines of
care for the management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol.
2018 Mar;78(3):560-78.
9. Mélega JM. Cirurgia Plástica - Fundamentos e Arte. Rio de Janeiro: MEDSI; 2002.
10. Jackson IT. Retalhos locais na reconstrução de cabeça e pescoço. Rio de Janeiro: DiLivros;
2002.
11. Baker SR. Baker: local flaps in facial reconstruction. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier
Health Sciences; 2007.
12. Knackstedt T, Knackstedt RW, Couto R, Gastman B. Malignant melanoma: diagnostic and
management update. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Aug;142(2):202e-16e.
13. Schadendorf D, van Akkooi ACJ, Berking C, Griewank KG, Gutzmer R, Hauschild A, et
al. Melanoma. Lancet. 2018 Sep;392(10151):971-84.
14. Hughley BB, Schmalbach CE. Cutaneous head and neck malignancies in the elderly. Clin
Geriatr Med. 2018 May;34(2):245-58.
15. Laitano FF, Teixeira LF, Siqueira EJ, Alvarez GS, Martins PDE, Oliveira MP. Use of
skin flaps for nasal reconstruction after neoplastic resection. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2012 Jun;27(2):217-22.
16. Broetto J, Freitas JOG, Sperli AE, Soh SW, Richter CA, Toni RA. Surgical treatment
of basal and squamous cell carcinomas: experience of the Plastic Surgery Services
of Hospital Ipiranga. Rev Bras Cir Plást. 2012 Dec;27(4):527-30.
17. Souza CFD, Thomé EP, Menegotto PF, Schmitt JV, Shibue JRT, Tarlé RG. Topografia do
carcinoma basocelular e suas correlações com o gênero, a idade e o padrão histológico:
um estudo retrospectivo de 1.042 lesões. An Bras Dermatol. 2011 Apr;86(2):272-7.
18. Cameron MC, Lee E, Hibler BP, Barker CA, Mori S, Cordova M, et al. Basal cell carcinoma:
Epidemiology; pathophysiology; clinical and histological subtypes; and disease associations.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):303-17.
19. Bariani RL, Nahas FX, Barbosa MVJ, Farah AB, Ferreira LM. Basal cell carcinoma: an
updated epidemiological and therapeutically profile of an urban population. Acta Cir
Bras. 2006 Mar/Apr;21(2):66-73.
20. Blank MM, Chen L, Papageorge M, Driscoll D, Graham R, Chatterjee A. The underreporting
of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: A systematic review of the plastic
surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Mar;71(3):366-76.
21. Bócoli KH, Veiga DF, Cabral IV, Carvalho MP, Novo NF, Veiga Filho J, et al. Tratamento
cirúrgico de carcinomas cutâneos pelo Sistema Único de Saúde: análise de custos. Rev
Col Bras Cir. 2013 Dec;40(6):449-52.
1. Hospital Ernesto Dornelles, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
2. Hospital de Pronto Socorro de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
3. Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Daniele Walter Duarte, Rua General Caldwell 969, Bairro Menino Deus, Porto Alegre, RS. Brazil. Zip Code:
90130-051. E-mail: daniwalterduarte@gmail.com
Article received: December 21, 2019.
Article accepted: February 22, 2020.
Conflicts of interest: none.