Multi-center experience with outpatient total hip arthroplasty via a standard posterolateral approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and resource utilization of a pilot outpatient surgery program for total hip arthroplasty compared to traditional inpatient total hip arthroplasty performed via the posterolateral approach. METHODS: A cohort of 68 patients from two sites were enrolled in a regional pilot project for outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA) and matched 1:1 against a cohort of patients undergoing routine inpatient THA. Data was extracted retrospectively from patient and hospital charts including adverse events (AE), readmission within 90 days, emergency room (ER) visits, patient calls, patient-reported outcome measures, length of stay, and multiple surgical variables. RESULTS: The outpatient group had a mean hospital stay of 13 hours, whereas the inpatient group had a mean of 58 hours (p<0.001). Three outpatients and four inpatients experienced post-op complications. Three inpatients and one outpatient visited the ER within 8 weeks of surgery. No difference in pre-operative hemoglobin (p = 0.210), or surgical blood loss (p = 0.550) was found between study groups. There was no difference found between groups regarding Oxford-12 Hip Score improvement, nor satisfaction at six months, one and two years (p>0.125). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that outpatient THA using the posterolateral approach is as safe and effective as inpatient THA for overall healthy and carefully screened patients, based on the low rate of AEs observed and similar patient outcomes reported. Significantly reduced time in hospital demonstrates the reduced healthcare resources associated with outpatient THA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".