Episode-of-care costs of total hip arthroplasty: day surgery versus same-day admission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> Although day surgery (DS) total hip arthroplasty (THA) has good patient satisfaction and a good safety profile, accurate episode-of-care cost (EOCC) calculations for this procedure compared to standard same-day admission (SDA) THA are not well known. We determined the EOCCs for patients who underwent THA, comparing DS and SDA pathways. <h3>Methods:</h3> We evaluated the EOCCs for consecutive patients who underwent DS or SDA THA for osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis performed by a single surgeon at 1 academic centre from July 2018 to January 2020. Patient demographic and clinical data were recorded, as were preoperative diagnosis, type of anesthesia, type of implant used, surgical time and estimated blood loss. We determined direct and indirect costs from time of arrival at the presurgical unit to hospital discharge. We determined the EOCCs using an ABC method. <h3>Results:</h3> The study included 50 patients who underwent THA (25 DS, 25 SDA). The mean length of stay in the SDA group was 45.1 (standard deviation [SD] 21.4) hours. Differences were observed between the 2 groups in mean age, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score, surgical technique and mean surgical time (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). The mean total EOCC for SDA THA was $10 911 (SD $706.12, range $9944.07–$12 871.95), compared to $9672 (SD $546.55, range $8838.30–$11 058.07) for DS THA, a difference of 11.4%, mostly attributable to hospital resources such as laboratory tests, radiologic studies and cost of the surgical admission. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Day surgery THA is cost-effective in selected patient populations. With the savings identified in this study, every 10 additional DS THA procedures would save sufficient resources to perform an additional THA operation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".