Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Outpatient versus inpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Knee 2017 March
BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce the financial costs related to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) include reducing the length of hospitalization of the patient undergoing ACLR. However, it is unclear if inpatient and outpatient ACLR differ in terms of safety, satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes.

AIM: To systematically review and synthesize the literature that directly compared costs and outcomes after outpatient and inpatient ACLR.

METHODS: Studies that directly compared outcomes of inpatient and outpatient ACLR were retrieved via searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Random effects meta-analysis and descriptive analysis were performed for relevant outcomes.

RESULTS: Costs analysis suggests that outpatient ACLR may be a cost effective procedure with savings ranging from $1371 to $7390. There were no differences for systemic and local complications p=0.64 (odds ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 13.49) and p=0.72 (0.81, 0.26 to 2.56) respectively, or pain in the second and seventh days after surgery, p=0.78 (mean difference -0.16; 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 0.96) and p=0.44 (0.48, -0.75 to 1.71), respectively. However, the outpatient group had less pain than the inpatient group in the first and third days after surgery, p=0.0001 (-0.39, -0.57 to -0.21) and p=0.0001(-0.39, -0.39 to -0.20), respectively. Descriptive analysis revealed that the outpatient group experienced similar or better satisfaction, strength and knee function compared to the inpatient group.

CONCLUSION AND KEY FINDINGS: Complications, pain, satisfaction, knee function and strength are similar or better after outpatient compared to inpatient ACLR. Furthermore, cost savings may be achieved with outpatient ACLR. However, included studies presented low methodological quality and the quality of evidence was very low, so these results need to be confirmed by future studies.

REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42015024990).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app