Safety and patient satisfaction of outpatient shoulder arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in outpatient shoulder arthroplasty (SA); however, the clinical evidence behind this practice is sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of outpatient SA performed in an ambulatory surgery center and to determine patient factors that are associated with increased risk for perioperative complications or dissatisfaction. METHODS: Patient demographics and operative variables were collected retrospectively for patients undergoing outpatient SA at 2 ambulatory surgery centers with a minimum follow-up of 90 days. Patients completed a postsurgery questionnaire about their experience, satisfaction, pain control, and health care use. RESULTS: Forty-one anatomic total SAs (n = 32) and reverse SAs (n = 9) with a mean follow-up of 60 weeks (16.4 weeks-3 years) were included. The mean age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class were 60.6 ± 4.8 years, 31.8 ± 6.6, 2.9 ± 1.9, and 2.3 ± 0.6, respectively. Three (7.3%) minor complications occurred within 90 days of the SA, none before first follow-up. Two patients stayed in the ambulatory surgery center 23-hour observation unit. Thirty-five patients (85.4%) completed the questionnaire, of whom 97.0% (n = 32) were satisfied with the outpatient procedure. Two patients had difficulties with postoperative pain control and were taking chronic narcotic medication before surgery. CONCLUSION: Outpatient SA in an ambulatory surgery center is safe with high patient satisfaction and low rates of perioperative complications. Although larger cohorts are required to adequately determine which patients will be appropriate candidates for an outpatient SA, our findings do suggest that patients with a history of preoperative narcotic use may have difficulties or dissatisfaction with outpatient SA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".