A propensity score-matched analysis comparing outpatient and short-stay hospitalization to standard inpatient hospitalization following total ankle arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the trend toward value-based care, there has been increased interest in minimizing hospital length of stay (LOS) after orthopedic procedures. Outpatient total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) has become more popular in recent years; however, research on surgical outcomes of this procedure has been limited. This study sought to employ large sample, propensity score-matched analyses to assess the safety of outpatient and short-stay discharge pathways following TAA. METHODS: The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify 1141 patients who underwent primary and revision TAA between 2007 and 2017. Propensity score matching was used to match patients based on several factors, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and several comorbidities. The incidence of various 30-day complications was compared between the short and standard LOS groups to assess for any differences in short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 892 patients were included in the final propensity score-matched analysis, with 446 patients in each group. The short LOS group had a significantly lower rate of medical complications (0.2% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.006) and non-home discharge (1.3% vs. 12.1%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in operative complications (0.4% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.107), unplanned readmission (0.4% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.451), reoperation (0.2% vs. 0.4%, p > 0.999), return to the OR (0.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.374), or mortality (0.7% vs. 0.0%, p > 0.249) between the short and standard LOS groups. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient and short-stay hospitalization had comparable safety to standard inpatient hospitalization after TAA. Outpatient or short-stay TAA should be considered for patients with low risk of short-term complications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".