https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9650-9105
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
A key strategy to address system pressures on hip and knee arthroplasty through the COVID-19 pandemic has been to shift procedures to the outpatient setting.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort and case-control study. Using the Discharge Abstract Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System databases, we estimated the use of outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty in Ontario, Canada. After propensity-score matching, we estimated rates of 90-day readmission, 90-day emergency department (ED) visit, 1-year mortality, and 1-year infection or revision.
Results
204,066 elective hip and 341,678 elective knee arthroplasties were performed from 2010–2022. Annual volumes of hip and knee arthroplasties increased steadily until 2020. Following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020) through December 31, 2022 there were 7,561 (95% CI 5,435 to 9,688) fewer hip and 20,777 (95% CI 17,382 to 24,172) fewer knee replacements performed than expected. Outpatient arthroplasties increased as a share of all surgeries from 1% pre-pandemic to 39% (hip) and 36% (knee) by 2022. Among inpatient arthroplasties, the tendency to discharge to home did not change since the start of the pandemic. During the COVID-19 era, patients receiving arthroplasty in the outpatient setting had a similar or lower risk of readmission than matched patients receiving inpatient arthroplasty [hip: RR 0.65 (0.56–0.76); knee: RR 0.86 (0.76–0.97)]; ED visits [hip: RR 0.78 (0.73–0.83); knee: RR 0.92 (0.88–0.96)]; and mortality, infection, or revision [hip: RR 0.65 (0.45–0.93); knee: 0.90 (0.64–1.26)].
Conclusion
Following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, the volume of outpatient hip and knee arthroplasties performed increased despite a reduction in overall arthroplasty volumes. This shift in surgical volumes from the inpatient to outpatient setting coincided with pressures on hospitals to retain inpatient bed capacity. Patients receiving arthroplasty in the outpatient setting had relatively similar outcomes to those receiving inpatient surgery after matching on known sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
Citation: Habbous S, Waddell J, Hellsten E (2023) The successful and safe conversion of joint arthroplasty to same-day surgery: A necessity after the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0290135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290135
Editor: Kuo-Cherh Huang, Taipei Medical University, TAIWAN
Received: August 9, 2023; Accepted: November 8, 2023; Published: November 27, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Habbous et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data availability: Ontario Health is prohibited from making the data used in this research publicly accessible if it includes potentially identifiable personal health information and/or personal information as defined in Ontario law, specifically the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Due to these legal and ethical restrictions, data will not be made publicly available. However, upon request, data de-identified to a level suitable for public release may be provided. Requests can be made to OH-CCO_Research@ontariohealth.ca.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Arthroplasties are among the most frequently performed surgeries, owing to their safety and effectiveness for relieving major joint pain and stiffness primarily caused by advanced osteoarthritis. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, elective surgeries were temporarily suspended [1]. As a result, many patients who otherwise might have received a hip or knee arthroplasty had their surgeries delayed or deferred, with potential detrimental impacts on patient quality-of-life and risk of complications [2–4].
With continued strains on hospital bed capacity and reduced health system resources since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts to reconcile the surgical backlog may require a shift in patient management from the inpatient to outpatient setting. Hip and knee arthroplasties are excellent candidate surgeries to reduce the burden on hospital inpatient wards as studies have shown many of these procedures can be safely performed in an outpatient setting without compromising patient outcomes [5–7]. Recognizing this, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the United States removed from the inpatient-only list total knee replacement in 2018 and total hip replacement in 2020, resulting in a drastic shift towards outpatient arthroplasty [8, 9]. Emergency department visits and readmissions were favourable following outpatient hip but worse following outpatient knee replacement. A systematic review of the literature comparing inpatient with outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty captured studies predominantly from the United States, and studies from other countries were sparse (two from Canada and three from Europe) and not population-based (study size <600).
In the present study, we examine how the provision of outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty in Ontario has changed between 2010 and 2022, with a focus on the COVID-19 pandemic period. This is the largest population-based analyses to date from a universal health care system on this topic. These findings can be used to inform strategies to plan for surgical recovery.
Methods
In this retrospective population-based cohort study, inpatient and outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty surgeries were captured between 2010 and 2022. We examined 1) the effect of the pandemic on surgical volumes; 2) trends of inpatient versus outpatient arthroplasty; and 3) outcomes comparing inpatient with outpatient arthroplasty.
Cohort definitions
Inpatient and outpatient arthroplasties performed in Ontario hospitals between January 1, 2010 (the earliest data available for comorbidity assessment) and December 31, 2022 were identified from the Discharge Abstract Database (inpatient) and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (outpatient) databases using the Canadian Classification of Interventions (CCI) codes for a main intervention of hip arthroplasty (1.VA.53 for hip joint; 1.SQ.53 for pelvis) or knee arthroplasty (1.VG.53 for knee joint; 1.VP.53 for patella) (S1 Table in S1 File). Data were extracted on June 20, 2023. Urgent procedures were removed, defined as either an admission record with entry code = “E”, admit category = “U”, ambulance arrival, or if the outpatient record was flagged as an emergency (derived from MIS functional codes).
Arthroplasties identified from the Discharge Abstract Database (inpatient) but having a discharge date equal to the arthroplasty date were reclassified as outpatient procedures, as these may have been either miscoded as inpatient or initially planned for inpatient. This decision was made a priori, supported by the data, and cautioned by the NACRS data quality documentation (S1 Fig in S1 File) [10].
All hospitals in Ontario are mandated to report all admission records (discharge abstracts) to the CIHI-DAD. Coding is performed by trained nosologists and routine data quality checks are performed [11]. All surgical outpatient hospital visits are reported to either the CIHI-DAD or CIHI-NACRS as a Level 3 submission, which mandates ICD-10-CA and CCI coding [10].
Covariates
Procedures were classified as total or partial arthroplasties using the CCI code reporting the type of implant as either dual- or tri-component device (total arthroplasty) or single-component device (partial arthroplasty) [12].
The diagnosis related to the joint replacement was assigned using the most responsible diagnosis for the repair. For 5,574 (0.9%) procedures that had no diagnostic code, we imputed the diagnosis as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) if the patient had any hospital encounter for RA from DAD/NACRS in the previous 3 years or at least 3 physician billings over the previous 2 years with at least one being assigned by a specialist (sensitivity = 78%) [13]. The remainder were imputed as osteoarthritis if there was any physician billing or hospital record within the prior 3 years (sensitivity = 77%) [14].
Comorbidity was estimated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. This was modified to 1) include oral agents for diabetes from the Ontario Drug Benefits database (for Ontarians age 65+ years) [15]; and 2) exclude rheumatoid arthritis from the connective tissue or rheumatoid disease component of the Charlson score, since this was treated as a covariate (S2 and S3 Tables in S1 File).
Neighbourhood sociodemographics were derived from the 2016 Census and the Ontario Marginalization Index, which included rurality, material deprivation (composite of education, lone-parent families, income, employment, housing in disrepair) and ethnic diversity (composite of immigration status and visible minority) [16]. For admitted patients, discharge home was defined as discharge disposition ‘04’ or ‘05’.
Outcomes during the COVID-19 era by setting
To assess whether short-term outcomes were different for inpatient compared with outpatient arthroplasty patients, a sub-cohort was created, restricted to unilateral elective (non-urgent) primary repairs performed since March 1, 2020 (approximate start of the COVID-19 pandemic) for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Procedures initially classified as a primary based on the status attribute code were excluded if there was evidence of a prior ipsilateral arthroplasty since January 1, 2007 due to more accurate coding of laterality [12]. We also excluded primary arthroplasties with hardware removal within 30 days prior (CCI code 1VG55, 1VP55, 1SQ55, 1VA55 in any position).
Outcomes included a composite of joint infection, revision arthroplasty for any reason, or all-cause mortality within 1 year of the procedure (restricted to patients having an arthroplasty between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021 for sufficient follow-up). Joint infection was defined using T845.3 (hip) or T845.4 (knee) in any position from DAD/NACRS [17]. All-cause mortality was obtained from the Registered Persons Database. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and 90-day unplanned emergency department visits. Readmissions and ED visits were defined as any admission or ED visit within 90 days of discharge (inpatient setting) or registration date (outpatient setting). Unplanned ED visits included those where the MIS functional centre code started with 7*310 and had an ED visit indicator flag.
Statistical methods
Descriptive statistics were used to estimate changes over time. To calculate the difference between the number of arthroplasties performed during the pandemic period had there been no pandemic, we forecasted the pre-pandemic weekly arthroplasty counts using linear regression with the covariates for year (general trends), month (seasonal trends), and week number (holidays and other regular fluxes in surgical activity). The expected number of procedures performed between 2020 and 2022 was extrapolated from the pre-pandemic model and the observed values were subtracted from the expected values.
To describe the differences between inpatient and outpatient procedures, we present standardized differences and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression.
To compare outcome by setting, patients receiving a hip or knee arthroplasty in the outpatient setting were propensity-matched to those performed in the inpatient setting. The propensity score was estimated using logistic regression with age, sex, rurality, deprivation quintile, instability quintile, dependency quintile, ethnic diversity quintile, comorbidity score, total/partial repair, and repair date. Nearest-neighbour matching with a caliper of 0.05 was performed using the matchit() function in the MatchIt package in R (attempting to match 2 inpatient procedures to 1 outpatient procedure). Balance was assessed using standardized mean differences (all <|0.1|, demonstrating good balance). For patient outcomes, modified Poisson regression was used to estimate the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI using robust standard error estimation using the matched dataset [18]. In sensitivity analysis, the association between setting and patient outcomes were compared using different statistical models, including crude, adjusted, crude after matching, and adjusted after matching (adjusted for all variables used to generate the propensity score). Analysis was performed on complete-case.
Privacy and software
All analyses were performed using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) or RStudio (1.2.5). Values <6 were suppressed to prevent re-identification. This study was compliant with section 45(1) of PHIPA (Ontario Health is a prescribed entity): ethics review was not required. Data were analyzed using the Analytics Data Hub at Ontario Health with patient identifiers removed or pseudonymized prior to access.
Results
After exclusions (Fig 1), there were 204,066 elective hip and 341,678 elective knee arthroplasties performed in Ontario since 2010, most of which were primary repairs (70% hip; 67% knee), total replacements (97% hip; 98% knee), and performed on women (55% hip; 61% knee) (S4 Table in S1 File) The most common responsible diagnosis was osteoarthritis (90% hip; 94% knee).
Volumes
Pre-pandemic (2010–2019), the year-over-year increase in the number of arthroplasties were 748 (SE 24.9) for hip and 1,151 (SE 54.3) for knee (Fig 2). After accounting for year-over-year changes, monthly seasonality, and weekly trends, assuming a continued trajectory through March 2020 to December, 2022, there were 7,561 (95% CI 5,435 to 9,688) fewer elective hip and 20,777 (95% CI 17,382 to 24,172) fewer elective knee replacements performed than expected (S2 Fig in S1 File).
Number of elective hip (A) and knee (B) arthroscopies over time and setting.
Outpatient versus inpatient
Outpatient arthroplasties increased from 1% pre-pandemic to 39% (hip) and 36% (knee) by 2022 (Fig 2). Between March 2020 and December 2022, patients were more likely to receive a hip or knee arthroplasty in the outpatient versus the inpatient setting if they were younger [OR 0.70 (0.69–0.71) for hip; OR 0.74 (0.72–0.75) for knee], male [OR 1.21 (1.16–1.26) for hip; OR 1.21 (1.17–1.25) for knee], received a primary arthroplasty versus a revision [OR 1.48 (1.38–1.58) for hip; OR 1.29 (1.23–1.36) for knee], received a partial versus total arthroplasty [OR 1.64 (1.37–1.96) for hip; OR 2.46 (2.18–2.77) for knee], and had a lower comorbidity score [OR 0.22 (0.18–0.27) for hip; OR 0.28 (0.24–0.33) for knee for 3+ comorbidities versus none] (Table 1). Some differences by joint were observed for socio-demographic factors. For hip replacements, outpatient procedures were least likely for patients residing in neighbourhoods with the highest deprivation [OR 0.64 (0.59–0.69)], highest dependency [OR 0.87 (0.80–0.94)], and highest ethnic diversity [OR 0.84 (0.77–0.91)]. However, for knee arthroplasty, outpatient procedures were most likely among patients residing in neighbourhoods of the highest ethnic diversity [OR 1.37 (1.28–1.46)] and least likely for the highest instability [OR 0.78 (0.74–0.84)]. There was significant regional variation during the pandemic era (Fig 3A and 3B).
(A-B) Percentage of elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed in an outpatient setting during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to December 2022); (C-D) Percentage of elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed in an inpatient setting who were discharged to home.
Discharge disposition
Since March 2020, most patients were discharged home following an inpatient procedure (93% hip; 96% knee), with some regional variability (Fig 3C and 3D). There was no indication that this increased since the pandemic (Fig 4).
Percent of inpatient hip and knee arthroplasties discharged to home by year of arthroplasty.
Outcomes
Outcomes between outpatient and inpatient settings were compared during the COVID-era (March 2020-December 2022), restricted to primary (non-revision) unilateral replacements performed for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 38,846 hip; n = 57,564 knee).
Readmissions.
The 90-day readmission rates were 4.9% and 2.4% following inpatient and outpatient hip arthroplasty, respectively [crude RR 0.48 (0.42–0.55)] (Table 2). For knee arthroplasty, the readmission rates were 4.1% and 2.9% following inpatient and outpatient repair, respectively [crude RR 0.71 (0.63–0.79)]. After matching, patients receiving outpatient hip or knee arthroplasty were less likely to be readmitted within 90 days compared with inpatients [RR 0.65 (0.56–0.76) for hip; RR 0.86 (0.76–0.97) for knee]. Results were similar between different statistical models (S5 Table in S1 File).
ED visits.
The 90-day ED visit rates were 19.0% and 13.6% following inpatient and outpatient hip arthroplasty, respectively [crude RR 0.72 (0.68–0.76); matched RR 0.78 (0.73–0.83)]. Following knee arthroplasty, the ED visit rates were 20.6% and 17.6% following inpatient and outpatient surgeries, respectively [crude RR 0.85 (0.82–0.89); matched RR 0.92 (0.88–0.96)].
Infection, revision and death.
The 1-year risk of infection, revision, or death was lower in the outpatient setting than the inpatient setting following hip arthroplasty [0.7% versus 1.5%; crude RR 0.45 (0.32–0.63)]. After matching, this association was attenuated but persisted [RR 0.65 (0.45–0.93), p = 0.02]. Following knee replacement, the risk of an event within 1 year was 0.7% for outpatients and 1.0% among inpatients [crude RR 0.74 (0.55–0.99), p = 0.04]. However, after matching, the difference by setting was abrogated [RR 0.90 (0.64–1.26), p = 0.54].
Discussion
We observed a significant reduction in the volume of hip and knee arthroplasties performed since the start of the pandemic, persisting until at least early 2022. Alongside this reduction in inpatient volumes, there was a significant increase during the same period in the volume of outpatient hip and knee arthroplasties, suggesting that hospitals and surgeons responded to system pressures on inpatient bed capacity by shifting arthroplasties to the outpatient setting. While this rapid shift to outpatient care might raise potential concerns around impacts on quality and outcomes, we found in our matched analysis that outcomes were similar or better for outpatient arthroplasties than inpatient cases.
With approximately 50,000 hip and knee replacements performed in Ontario each year (2019 counts), even small improvements in patient outcomes and health system financial outcomes will have a substantial impact on the healthcare system. Other studies have demonstrated similar outcomes with outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty compared with the inpatient setting, including similar complication rates, readmission rates, and patient-reported outcome measures [19–26]. Outpatient surgery can reduce health system resource requirements for these cases and free up inpatient beds required for more complex patients. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered the rapid uptake of outpatient arthroplasty in multiple jurisdictions; owing to the positive outcomes observed following this shift, it is likely that this increase in outpatient surgery will be sustained [24, 27–29]. With aging populations, there is expectation that the number of hip and knee arthroplasty procedures will increase, and jurisdictions that still perform inpatient-only procedures may be forced to consider the outpatient setting [30–33].
With evidence mounting that outpatient joint replacement is safe, effective, and cost-saving, efforts should be undertaken to understand the barriers to further uptake. These barriers may explain some of the regional variability observed in this study. One example is patient expectation and hospital culture. Some hospitals have incorporated information about outpatient procedures in educational packages provided to patients, which is important for patient-informed decision-making [34]. Anecdotally, most patients would prefer to recover at home, but facilities must be equipped and organized to provide this service. One consideration is the human resources that are required to operate an outpatient clinic, such as physiotherapist and nurse staffing. Another factor is pain management: some hospitals may be better equipped to provide same-day analgesic medications to support an outpatient model than others. Finally, there are also surgeon-specific factors: anecdotally, younger surgeons may be more likely to perform outpatient procedures.
In an effort to tackle the surgical backlog precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is mounting interest in the role of ambulatory surgical centres (in Ontario known as “Independent Health Facilities”) for performing low-risk operations (e.g. cataracts). Hospitals performing outpatient arthroplasties typically have an inpatient bed on reserve in case the patient is not discharged (e.g. due to pain). Whether joint replacement joins the list of candidate procedures to be conducted in an independent health facility remains to be seen, but results from two systematic reviews demonstrated that most patients (88.1–94.7%) were discharged on the same day, as planned [35, 36]. Despite this, risk prediction models predicting the likelihood of outpatient versus inpatient arthroplasty may have worsened since the pandemic, so independent health facilities must consider the possibility of some inpatient capacity or proximity to an inpatient facility for patients who end up requiring an admission [37].
Limitations
One limitation is the lack of data on all factors known to select patients for outpatient repair (e.g. frailty, availability of support systems, physical living environment including stairs). Despite this, we matched on comorbidity and various sociodemographic characteristics after restricting to primary elective arthroplasties, which may also incidentally balance the groups on unmeasured confounders of indication. Thus, our findings of equal (or better) outpatient outcomes may be generalizable only to the subset of patients considered appropriate for outpatient arthroplasty [8]. Another limitation is the lack of data on functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life), an understudied topic with mixed results [38]. A further limitation is that our administrative data does not allow us to differentiate inpatient stays on an “intention-to-treat” basis between patients who were originally planned for an outpatient arthroplasty (and were forced to stay overnight due to complications that prevented same day discharge) from patients that were originally planned for an inpatient stay. This limitation may introduce bias in our comparison of outcomes between the inpatient and outpatient cohorts as outpatient cases that experience poorer in-hospital outcomes are more likely to be shifted to the inpatient cohort.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the reduction in hip and knee arthroplasty volumes observed in Ontario since the COVID-19 pandemic began was also associated with a dramatic increase in the uptake in outpatient arthroplasty. Ninety-day readmission, 90-day ED visit, and 1-year mortality were similar or better for selected outpatient procedures than for matched inpatient controls.
References
- 1. Habbous S, Lambrinos A, Petersen S, Hellsten E. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital admissions and outpatient visits in Ontario, Canada. Ann Thorac Med. 2023;18(2):70–8. pmid:37323374
- 2. Cisternas AF, Ramachandran R, Yaksh TL, Nahama A. Unintended consequences of COVID-19 safety measures on patients with chronic knee pain forced to defer joint replacement surgery. Pain reports. 2020;5(6). pmid:33134751
- 3. Khan SA, Logan P, Asokan A, Handford C, Rajgor HD, Khadabadi NA, et al. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in total joint replacement during COVID-19 pandemic: has lockdown had an influence? Bone Jt open. 2020 Dec 1;1(12):751–6. pmid:33367283
- 4. Clement ND, Wickramasinghe NR, Bayram JM, Hughes K, Oag E, Heinz N, et al. Significant deterioration in quality of life and increased frailty in patients waiting more than six months for total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional multicentre study. bone Jt J. 2022;104–B(11):1215–24. pmid:36317352
- 5. Pollock M, Somerville L, Firth A, Lanting B. Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty, Total Knee Arthroplasty, and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of the Literature. JBJS Rev. 2016 Dec 20;4(12). pmid:28060788
- 6. Rosinsky PJ, Chen SL, Yelton MJ, Lall AC, Maldonado DR, Shapira J, et al. Outpatient vs. inpatient hip arthroplasty: a matched case-control study on a 90-day complication rate and 2-year patient-reported outcomes. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Aug 31;15(1). pmid:32867794
- 7. Gong S, Yi Y, Wang R, Han L, Gong T, Wang Y, et al. Outpatient total knee and hip arthroplasty present comparable and even better clinical outcomes than inpatient operation. Front Surg. 2022 Sep 6;9. pmid:36147695
- 8. Burnett RA, Barrack TN, Terhune EB, Della Valle CJ, Shah RP, Courtney PM. Over Half of All Medicare Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Are Now Classified as an Outpatient-Three-Year Impact of the Removal From the Inpatient-Only List. J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jun 1;38(6):992–7. pmid:36535441
- 9. Cochrane NH, Kim BI, Seyler TM, Wellman SS, Bolognesi MP, Ryan SP. The Removal of Total Hip Arthroplasty From the Inpatient-Only List has Improved Patient Selection and Expanded Optimization Efforts. J Arthroplasty. 2023 Jul 1;38(7S):S23–8. pmid:36898484
- 10.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data Quality Documentation National Ambulatory Care Reporting System Current-Year Information 2021–2022 NACRS [Internet]. Ottawa, ON; 2022.
- 11.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data Quality Documentation, Discharge Abstract Database—Current-Year Information, 2021–2022 [Internet]. Ottawa, ON: CIHI; 2022.
- 12.
Juurlink D, Preyra C, Croxford R, Chong A, Austin P, Tu J, et al. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database: A Validation Study. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2006.
- 13. Jessica Bombardier CW, Bernatsky S, Paterson MJ, Green D, Young J, Ivers N, et al. An administrative data validation study of the accuracy of algorithms for identifying rheumatoid arthritis: the influence of the reference standard on algorithm performance. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(216).
- 14. Widdifield J, Jaakkimainen RL, Gatley JM, Hawker GA, Lix LM, Bernatsky S, et al. Validation of canadian health administrative data algorithms for estimating trends in the incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cart Open. 2020;2(4). pmid:36474895
- 15. Lipscombe LL, Hwee J, Webster L, Shah BR, Booth GL, Tu K. Identifying diabetes cases from administrative data: a population-based validation study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 May 2;18(1).
- 16.
Matheson FI, Moloney G, van Ingen T, Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario). 2016 Ontario marginalization index: user guide [Internet]. 1st revisi. Toronto, ON: St. Michael’s Hospital (Unity Health Toronto). Joint publication with Public Health Ontario; 2022.
- 17. Kandel CE, Jenkinson R, Daneman N, Backstein D, Hansen BE, Muller MP, et al. Predictors of Treatment Failure for Hip and Knee Prosthetic Joint Infections in the Setting of 1- and 2-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019;6(11). pmid:31737739
- 18. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr 1;159(7):702–6. pmid:15033648
- 19.
Outpatient or Short Stay Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty versus Conventional Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Review of Clinical Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Guidelines [Internet]—PubMed [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jan 24]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33534448/
- 20. Rosinsky PJ, Go CC, Bheem R, Shapira J, Maldonado DR, Meghpara MB, et al. The cost-effectiveness of outpatient surgery for primary total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a computer-based cost-utility study. Hip Int. 2021 Sep 1;31(5):572–81. pmid:32853035
- 21. Zomar BO, Marsh JD, Bryant DM, Lanting BA. The cost of outpatient versus inpatient total hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial. Can J Surg. 2022;65(5):E553–61. pmid:36302128
- 22. Yian EH, Schmiesing AM, Kwong BD, Prentice HA, Patel SP. Procedure Cost Comparison of Outpatient and Inpatient Shoulder Arthroplasty and Lower-Extremity Arthroplasty Within a Managed-Care Organization. Perm J. 2022;26(4):6–13. pmid:36280900
- 23. DeMik DE, Carender CN, An Q, Callaghan JJ, Brown TS, Bedard NA. Longer Length of Stay Is Associated With More Early Complications After Total Knee Arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J. 2022;42(2):53–9. pmid:36601234
- 24. Hammerberg EM, Tucker NJ, Stacey SC, Mauffrey C, Heare A, Verduzco LA, et al. Institution of same-day total joint replacement at an urban safety net hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Orthop. 2022 Nov 1;34:173. pmid:36060728
- 25. Xu J, Cao JY, Chaggar GS, Negus JJ. Comparison of outpatient versus inpatient total hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications. J Orthop. 2019 Jan;17:38–43. pmid:31879471
- 26. Bemelmans YFL, Keulen MHF, Heymans M, van Haaren EH, Boonen B, Schotanus MGM. Safety and efficacy of outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022 Aug 1;142(8):1775–91. pmid:33587170
- 27. Ong CB, Grubel J, Steele J, Chiu YF, Boettner F, Haas S, et al. Re-initiation of elective total knee arthroplasty with an adapted pathway during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic was safe and effective. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022; pmid:36550383
- 28. Thompson JW, Wignadasan W, Ibrahim M, Plastow R, Beasley L, Haddad FS. The introduction of day-case total knee arthroplasty in a national healthcare system: A review of the literature and development of a hospital pathway. Surgeon. 2022 Apr 1;20(2):103–14. pmid:33766461
- 29. Abdelaal MS, Small I, Sherman MB, Courtney PM, Sharkey PF. One Year Later: The Lasting Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Elective Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 Nov 15;30(22):E1474–82. pmid:36084330
- 30. Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(17):1455–60. pmid:30180053
- 31. Ackerman IN, Bohensky MA, Zomer E, Tacey M, Gorelik A, Brand CA, et al. The projected burden of primary total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis in Australia to the year 2030. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Feb 23;20(1).
- 32. Moldovan F, Moldovan L, Bataga T. A Comprehensive Research on the Prevalence and Evolution Trend of Orthopedic Surgeries in Romania. Healthc (Basel, Switzerland). 2023 Jul 1;11(13). pmid:37444700
- 33. Kumar A, Tsai WC, Tan TS, Kung PT, Chiu LT, Ku MC. Temporal trends in primary and revision total knee and hip replacement in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015 Sep 1;78(9):538–44. pmid:26318767
- 34. Bodrogi A, Dervin GF, Beaulé PE. Management of patients undergoing same-day discharge primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. CMAJ. 2020;192(2):E34–9. pmid:31932338
- 35. Hoffmann JD, Kusnezov NA, Dunn JC, Zarkadis NJ, Goodman GP, Berger RA. The Shift to Same-Day Outpatient Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr 1;33(4):1265–74. pmid:29224990
- 36. Shapira J, Chen SL, Rosinsky PJ, Maldonado DR, Lall AC, Domb BG. Outcomes of outpatient total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Hip Int. 2021 Jan 1;31(1):4–11. pmid:32157903
- 37. Oeding JF, Bosco JA, Carmody M, Lajam CM. RAPT Scores Predict Inpatient Versus Outpatient Status and Readmission Rates After IPO Changes for Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 12,348 Cases. J Arthroplast. 2022;37(11):2140–8. pmid:35598763
- 38. Sattler L, Kisaloff L, Cragnolini T, Peters R, Hing W. A comparison of functional outcomes following inpatient versus outpatient hip or knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022 Dec 1;17(1). pmid:35918770