In-Hospital Cost of Total Hip Arthroplasty in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little information comparing the costs of specific surgical procedures performed in Canada and those done in the United States. The objective of this study was to compare the in-hospital costs associated with primary total hip arthroplasty performed in the two countries. METHODS: In-hospital costs of 1679 consecutive patients (940 Canadian and 739 American patients) who underwent total hip arthroplasty were extracted from three Canadian and three United States teaching hospitals between 1997 and 2001. Participating hospitals used the same cost accounting system to provide per-patient demographic, clinical, and cost data. Canadian dollar costs were converted to United States dollar costs with use of purchasing power parities. RESULTS: The baseline clinical characteristics of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty in Canada and the United States were similar. The American patients were a mean of 4.6 years older than the Canadian patients (mean [and standard deviation], 67.8 +/- 12.4 years compared with 63.2 +/- 14.9 years). The median cost for the primary arthroplasty was $6080 (mean [and standard error of the mean], $6766 +/-$119) at the three Canadian hospitals and $12,846 (mean, $13,339 +/-$131) at the United States hospitals (p < 0.0001). The mean length of stay (and standard deviation) was 7.2 +/- 4.7 days for the Canadian patients and 4.2 +/- 2.0 days for the American patients. Implants at one hospital in the United States were found to be four times more costly than those in a Canadian hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Higher in-hospital costs were found for the American hospitals despite the fact that they had a significantly shorter patient length of stay compared with Canadian centers (p < 0.0001). Canadian hospitals should follow the lead of their counterparts in the United States and implement strategies to decrease the length of stay in the hospital, while institutions in the United States should revisit their ability to better manage the costs related to a primary total hip arthroplasty, particularly by controlling unit costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".