204 A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes for Outpatient vs Inpatient Shoulder Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Outpatient shoulder arthroplasty is growing in popularity as a cost-effective and potentially equally safe alternative to inpatient arthroplasty. We investigated literature relating to outpatient shoulder arthroplasty, looking at clinical outcomes, complications, readmission, and cost compared to inpatient arthroplasty. Method We systematically searched Medline, Embase, PubMed using relevant search terms. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies score. Results We included 17 studies in our review with 11 included in the meta-analyses. A meta-analysis of hospital readmissions demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts (OR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-1.25, p = 0.49, I2=56%). Pooling results for all post-operative complications identified decreased complications in those undergoing outpatient surgery (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.94, p = 0.02, I2=50%). No statistically significant difference was identified with respect to medical complications (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74-1.01, p = 0.07, I2=0%) or surgical complications (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.45-1.12, p = 0.14, I2=26%). Considerable cost saving of between $3 614 – $53 202 (19.7 – 69.9%) per patient were present in the outpatient setting. Conclusions Shoulder arthroplasty in the outpatient setting is as safe as shoulder arthroplasty in the inpatient setting, with a significant reduction in cost. There is no demonstrable statistically significant difference with regards to readmissions between outpatient and inpatient shoulder arthroplasty. In the appropriately selected patient, outpatient shoulder arthroplasty is safe and cost-effective; however, we still need to work towards understanding who the appropriate patients are for this post-operative care pathway.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".