Economic Analysis and Patient Satisfaction Associated With Outpatient Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Background: Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is a rapidly growing treatment for end-stage ankle arthritis that is generally performed as an inpatient procedure. The feasibility of outpatient total ankle arthroplasty (OTAA) has not been reported in the literature. We sought to establish proof of concept for OTAA by comparing outpatient vs inpatient perioperative complications, postoperative emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, patient satisfaction, and cost analysis. Methods: From July 2010 to September 2015, a total of 36 patients underwent TAA. Patients with prior ankle replacement, prior ankle infections, neuroarthropathy, or osteonecrosis of the talus were excluded from the study. All patient demographics, tourniquet times, estimated blood loss, comorbidities, concomitant procedures, complications, return ED visits, and readmissions were recorded. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were collected. Twenty-one patients had outpatient surgery and 15 had inpatient surgery. The cohorts were matched demographically. Results: The average length of stay for the inpatient group was 2.5 days. The overall cost differential between the groups was 13.4%, with the outpatient group being less costly. This correlates to a cost savings of nearly $2500 per case. One patient in the outpatient group had a return ED visit on postoperative day 1 for urinary retention. There were no 30-day readmissions in either group. Seventy-one percent of the outpatient group and 93% of the inpatient group would not change to a different postoperative admission status if they were to have the procedure again. Conclusion: Our results show that OTAA was a cost-effective and safe alternative with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction. With proper patient selection, OTAA was beneficial to both the patient and the health care system by driving down total cost. It has the capacity to generate substantial savings while providing equal or better value to the patient. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.