Safety and hospital costs of Achilles tendon surgery: the serendipitous impact of a randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical management is currently the most common treatment offered for ruptured Achilles tendon; however, the length of hospital stay varies among hospitals. The objective of our study was to compare the costs associated with hospital stay and safety in 2 groups of patients undergoing surgical treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures. The first group of patients represented the surgical arm of a randomized clinical trial, the Multicentre Achilles Tendon Treatment Study (MATTS), and the second group comprised surgically treated patients not included in that trial (non-MATTS). METHODS: We performed an observational analytical retrospective chart review of all patients surgically treated for acute Achilles tendon ruptures at all Calgary-area hospitals over a 3-year period (October 2002-September 2005) who met our inclusion criteria. We determined the costs associated with hospital stay, complications and readmissions for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 282 patients met our inclusion criteria. Hospital admission costs of patients enrolled in the MATTS trial were less than those of non-MATTS patients treated at each of the 3 Calgary adult hospitals. Non-MATTS patients remained in hospital for 1-4 days in contrast to MATTS patients, who were typically admitted and discharged the day of surgery. The complication rate was similar in both groups (MATTS 9% v. non-MATTS 8%). There were no readmissions in the MATTS group and 2 in the non-MATTS group. Between October 2002 and September 2005, an additional $236,436 was spent on non-MATTS patients who underwent surgery for Achilles tendon rupture. CONCLUSION: Acute achilles tendon repair surgery is safe and less costly as an out-patient procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".