Postoperative Home Monitoring After Joint Replacement: Retrospective Outcome Study Comparing Cases With Matched Historical Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients undergoing postoperative home monitoring (POHM) following elective primary hip or knee replacements. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to compare the cost per patient, readmissions rate, emergency room visits, and mortality within 30 days to the historical standard of care using descriptive analysis. METHODS: After Research Ethics Board approval, patients who were enrolled and had completed a POHM study were individually matched to historical controls by age, American Society of Anesthesiology class, and procedure at a ratio 1:2. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients in the study group and 107 in the control group were eligible for the analysis. Compared with the historical standard of care, the average cost per case was Can $5826.32 (SD 1418.89) in the POHM group and Can $9198.58 (SD 1513.59) for controls. After 30 days, there were 2 emergency room visits (3.7%) and 0 readmissions in the POHM group, whereas there were 8 emergency room visits (7.5%) and 2 readmissions (1.9%) in the control group. No mortalities occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The POHM study offers an early hospital discharge pathway for elective hip and knee procedures at a 38% reduction of the standard of care cost. The multidisciplinary transitional POHM team may provide a reliable forum to minimize readmissions, and emergency room visits within 30 days postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02143232; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02143232 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73WQ9QR6P).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".