The cost of outpatient versus inpatient total hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One route to mitigate the increasing costs of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is outpatient THA, discharging patients on the same day as their surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of outpatient THA to standard overnight stay in hospital. METHODS: This was a preliminary analysis of the first group of patients to complete follow-up in a larger randomized controlled trial among patients who underwent primary THA through a direct anterior approach between June 2015 and November 2017. The study was conducted at a single centre among patients of 1 fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon. We randomly allocated participants to be discharged either as outpatients or on postsurgery day 1 using a modified Zelen consent model. Adverse events were recorded. Participants completed cost questionnaires 2, 6 and 12 weeks after surgery, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before and 12 weeks after surgery. We performed cost analyses from health care payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 115 participants completed this study, 49 allocated to the outpatient group and 56 to the inpatient group. The adverse event rate was similar for the 2 groups. The WOMAC total score and function subscale score were higher for the outpatient group than the inpatient group at 12 weeks (mean difference 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0 to 4.1, and 6.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 12.5, respectively). From both a health care payer and a societal perspective, inpatient THA was more costly than outpatient THA (mean difference $1006.86, 95% CI -$2158.92 to $145.21, and $1667.40, 95% CI -$3856.64 to $521.84, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that outpatient THA may be a cost-saving procedure compared to inpatient THA from both health care payer and societal perspectives. Further study with larger samples is needed to provide more precision around our estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT03026764.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".