Abstract
Background Day case total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a novel approach, not widely practiced in Europe. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients comparing elective day case and inpatient TSAs in our UK centre.
Aim To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of day case total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) compared to standard inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty.
Methods All patients undergoing TSA between January 2017 and July 2018 were included. Outcome measures were: change in abduction and extension 3 months postoperatively; 30 day postoperative adverse events and re-admissions in day case and inpatient groups. We also conducted an economic evaluation of outpatient arthroplasty. Multivariate linear and logistic regression were used to adjust for demographic and operative covariates.
Results 59 patients were included, 18 day cases and 41 inpatients. There were no adverse events or re-admissions at 30 days postoperatively in either group. There were no significant differences in adjusted flexion (mean difference 16.4°; 95% CI -17.6° to 50.5°, p=0.337) or abduction (mean difference 13.2° 95% CI; -18.4° to 44.9°, p=0.405) postoperatively between groups. Median savings with outpatient arthroplasty were GBP 529 (IQR 247.33 to 789, p<0.0001).
Conclusion Day case TSA is a safe, effective procedure, with significant cost benefit. Wider use may be warranted in the UK and beyond, with potential for significant cost savings and improved efficiency.
Core tip In this article we show that day case total shoulder arthroplasty is a feasible, safe and effective alternative to inpatient admission for the same procedure, with an associated average cost saving of GBP 529.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Supportive foundation acknowledgement: No funding or support was received for the conduct or publication of this study.
STROBE Statement: The authors have read the STROBE Statement—checklist of items, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the STROBE Statement— checklist of items.
Conflicting interests: The authors confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.
Informed Consent: No informed consent was necessary for publication of anonymised results of this local service evaluation in line with local policies.
Ethical Approval: This study was registered with the local clinical governance department at North Middlesex University Hospital as a service evaluation; no formal ethical approval was required.
Guarantorship: AB
Contributorship: AB contributed to the design, data collection, analysis and write up of the manuscript. CN and SG assisted with design of the study and data collection. AA and MK reviewed the manuscript.
This work has been presented (with more limited data including exclusion of cost effectiveness analysis) as a poster presentation at the Royal College Surgeons Orthopaedic Conference in Glasgow, UK on 17th May 2019.
This work has been presented orally at the European Orthopaedic Research Society Conference in Maastricht, Netherlands on 4th October 2019.
This work has not been published elsewhere, including in abstract form.
All authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript for publications. All authors believe that this manuscript represents honest work.
Data Availability
Data is available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.