Economic Analysis and Clinical Outcomes of Short-Stay Versus Inpatient Total Ankle Replacement Surgery.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

BACKGROUND: We aimed to perform an economic analysis and compare the clinical outcomes between inpatient and short-stay designation total ankle replacement (TAR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on 178 consecutive patients undergoing primary inpatient versus short-stay designation TAR during the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years. Patient demographics, concomitant procedures, perioperative complications, patient-reported outcomes, and perioperative costs were collected. RESULTS: The mean age of our cohort was 62.5 ± 9.6 years (range, 30-88 years), with a significant difference in age (64.1 vs 58.5 years) (P = .005) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.3 ± 1.9 vs 2.3 ± 1.4; P = .002) for the inpatient and short-stay designation groups, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 29.6 ± 11.8 months (range, 12-52.3 months), there was no difference in complications between groups (P = .97). The inpatient designation TAR group had a worse baseline Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) function score (76.1; 95% CI, 70.5-81.6) than the short-stay designation TAR group (63.9; 95% CI, 52.5-75.3) while achieving similar final postoperative SMFA function scores for the inpatient (55.2; 95% CI, 51.1-59.2) and short-stay (56.2; 95% CI, 48.2-64.2) designation TAR groups (P > .05). However, the inpatient designation TAR group showed a significantly greater mean improvement in SMFA function score (20.9; 95% CI, 19.4-22.4) compared with the short-stay designation TAR group (7.7; 95% CI, 3.7-11.1) (P = .0442). The total direct cost was significantly higher for the inpatient designation group ($15 340) than the short-stay designation group ($13 002) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: While inpatient designation TARs were more comorbid, short-stay designation TARs were associated with a 15.5% reduction in perioperative costs, comparable complication rates, and similar final postoperative patient-reported outcome scores compared with inpatient TARs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • Akoh, CC; Fletcher, AN; Chen, J; Wang, J; Adams, SA; DeOrio, JK; Nunley, JA; Easley, ME

Published Date

  • January 2021

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 42 / 1

Start / End Page

  • 96 - 106

PubMed ID

  • 32875812

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1944-7876

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1177/1071100720949200


  • eng

Conference Location

  • United States