@article {Borakati2020.03.24.20036558, author = {Aditya Borakati and Asad Ali and Chetana Nagaraj and Srinivas Gadikoppula and Michael Kurer}, title = {Day case versus inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis}, elocation-id = {2020.03.24.20036558}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1101/2020.03.24.20036558}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, 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{\textdegree}; 95\% CI -17.6{\textdegree} to 50.5{\textdegree}, p=0.337) or abduction (mean difference 13.2{\textdegree} 95\% CI; -18.4{\textdegree} to 44.9{\textdegree}, 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.Author DeclarationsAll 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.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData is available on reasonable request to the corresponding author.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/26/2020.03.24.20036558}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/26/2020.03.24.20036558.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }