Health care costs after total knee arthroplasty for satisfied and dissatisfied patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that up to 21% of patients are dissatisfied after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but the link between dissatisfaction and use of health care resources is unknown. The objective of this study was to compare costs after TKA between satisfied and dissatisfied patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent primary TKA at our institution between 2015 and 2018. We estimated rates of satisfaction with pain relief and with return to function 1 year postoperatively. Patients prospectively reported use of health care resources 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after surgery. We compared costs between satisfied and dissatisfied patients from a public payer and a societal perspective. RESULTS: We included 156 patients in our analysis, of whom 42 (26.9%) were dissatisfied with pain, and 57 (36.5%) were dissatisfied with function. There was no significant difference in costs between patients dissatisfied with pain or function compared to satisfied patients from a health care payer perspective. From a societal perspective, patients dissatisfied with pain incurred a mean cost of $21 156.18, compared to $13 453.84 for satisfied patients (mean difference $7702.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] -89.43 to 15 494.11). Similarly, patients dissatisfied with function incurred a mean cost of $19 007.70, compared to $13 523.83 for those who were satisfied (mean difference $5483.87, 95% CI -526.34 to 11 494.10). CONCLUSION: Dissatisfied patients incurred greater costs than satisfied patients during the first year after TKA. The results justify further evaluation of factors contributing to patient satisfaction that may help to reduce the economic burden of TKA.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".