ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024
Comparing outcomes in revision total hip arthroplasty in inpatient versus outpatient setting: a matched cohort analysis.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the population ages, revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is becoming more common. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding perioperative outcomes following inpatient versus outpatient rTHA. Our study aims to compare perioperative complications and readmission rates associated with rTHA in a large national cohort.
methodsA retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2006 to 2020. Patients undergoing rTHA in the inpatient setting were propensity matched to patients receiving rTHA in the outpatient setting. Following 1:1 matching, multivariate analyses were performed to compare perioperative complications and readmission.
resultsA total of 207,102 patients were identified, including 181,164 outpatient primary THA, 25,466 inpatient rTHA, and 492 outpatient rTHA patients. Following propensity matching, outpatient primary THA versus outpatient rTHA had 210 patients and inpatient rTHA versus outpatient rTHA had 214 patients. Patients in the outpatient rTHA had a significantly higher operative time (132.4 ± 73.2 versus 90.9 ± 32.7, p < 0.001) and length of stay (1.6 ± 1.6 vs. 0.9 ± 1.0, p < 0.001) compared to outpatient primary THA. When comparing inpatient versus outpatient rTHA, the outpatient cohort had lower operative time (131.1 ± 70.9 vs. 145.4 ± 71.5, p = 0.038), total length of stay (1.7 ± 1.8 vs. 3.6 ± 4.1, p < 0.001), and bleeding complications (6% vs. 18%, p < 0.001).
conclusionThere were no difference in the odds of complications between outpatient primary and revision THA. Additionally, rTHA performed in an outpatient setting did not show any increase in immediate compared to inpatient settings. These findings suggest that rTHA can be safely performed on certain patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.