ArticleJournal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty2026
Economic advantage of outpatient shoulder arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis.
Article in Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, 2026. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has become increasingly common due to advances in perioperative care and policy changes. While prior studies have demonstrated lower short-term costs associated with outpatient TSA, its long-term economic value compared with inpatient TSA remains unclear. Methods: A Markov cost-utility model compared outpatient and inpatient TSA from a U.S. payer perspective over a 20-year horizon. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3%. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying readmission and revision risks. Results: In the base case analysis, outpatient TSA was the dominant strategy. Mean discounted lifetime costs were lower for outpatient TSA compared with inpatient TSA ($23,375 vs. $28,402), resulting in a cost savings of $5,027 per patient. Outpatient TSA was associated with a modest increase in effectiveness, generating 10.436 QALYs compared with 10.427 QALYs for inpatient TSA (incremental gain, 0.009 QALYs). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, outpatient TSA demonstrated a mean incremental cost of -$5,142 (95% uncertainty interval, -$13,642 to $3,109) and a mean incremental effectiveness of 0.009 QALYs (95% uncertainty interval, -0.034 to 0.057). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, outpatient TSA was cost-effective in 89.0% of simulations and economically dominant in 61.1% of simulations. Conclusions: Outpatient TSA is a cost-effective and economically dominant strategy compared with inpatient TSA, driven primarily by lower initial procedural costs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that outpatient TSA remained cost-effective even when differences in perioperative complication and revision rates were substantially reduced.
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.