RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN A MATCHED COHORT OF INPATIENT AND DAY-SURGERY HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most hip replacements are performed in an in-patient setting; however, there has been a shift in recent years in Canada towards doing more on an outpatient basis. In 2021–2022, 15.6% of hip replacements were performed as day surgeries compared to 0.7% in 2018–2019. This analysis will assess patient reported outcome measures of patients who had inpatient versus outpatient hip replacement surgery between 2018 and 2021. We analysed a retrospective sample of 4917 adult patients who had an elective primary unilateral hip replacement. Preoperative and three-month postoperative PROMs were completed - the Oxford Hip Score, EQD5L and patient satisfaction with the outcome were recorded. Patients who had an outpatient procedure were matched 1:1 with patients who are admitted to hospital for surgery based on age, sex and pre-COVID versus the COVID (March 15, 2020 as the start). Preoperative PROMs and Charlson Comorbidity Index were collected. T-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess the differences. The inpatient group on average was older, female and had a lower preoperative PROMs score and more comorbidities than the outpatient group. With cohort matching the sample consisted of 1244 patients. The inpatient and outpatient groups have similar Oxford scores, postoperative EQ-5D-5L scores and the proportion satisfied with their surgical results. The Oxford postoperative score was slightly higher in the outpatient group compared to the inpatient group; however, this is not clinically significant. We observed that outpatient protocols have no difference in patient satisfaction, self-reported functional outcomes and self-reported health-related quality of life three months after a hip replacement. Day surgery protocols represented potential solution to the challenges caused by the expected increase in demand for hip replacements. Our results demonstrated that patients do well clinically with day surgery procedures and there does not appear to be any detrimental effect on PROMs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".