Primary Hip Arthroplasty Costs Are Greater in Low-volume Than in High-volume Canadian Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread success of total hip arthroplasties for treatment of arthritis of the hip, the procedure continues to be targeted for cost control. Our objective was to compare the total in-hospital cost of primary total hip arthroplasties in high-volume and low-volume hospitals. Data concerning the patient-level in-hospital costs of 940 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties were extracted from the cost accounting system of three Canadian hospitals. Mean in-hospital costs for patients having total hip arthroplasties in a high-volume institution (> or = 300 total hip arthroplasties/year) compared with two low-volume Canadian institutions (< 300 total hip arthroplasties/year) were: overhead costs 1380 US dollars +/- 35 US dollars versus 2432 US dollars +/- 49 US dollars; direct costs 3023 US dollars +/- 93 US dollars versus 4952 US dollars +/- 91 US dollars and total costs 4403 US dollars +/- 117 US dollars versus 7385 US dollars +/- 1 US dollar 38, respectively (all comparisons in US dollars). Lower overhead and direct and total costs were found for primary total hip arthroplasties done in a high-volume Canadian hospital compared with the low-volume centers. Differences in direct costs, made up in large part by the implant cost, accounted for most of the disparity. As total hip arthroplasties continue to be scrutinized for cost containment, doing the procedure in a high-volume center seems to be an effective method of controlling 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".