Retrospective cohort study reveals increased 90-day complications and utilization after inpatient distal radius fracture surgery, highlighting admission status as a clinical risk marker.
Distal radius fracture (DRF) open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is a common procedure performed across inpatient and outpatient settings. This study compared postoperative complications and healthcare utilization between these settings using a large national claims database. Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent DRF ORIF were identified in the PearlDiver Mariner database using International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Service location determined surgical setting. Patients with pathological fractures, malignancy, or polytrauma were excluded. Cohorts were propensity matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, and relevant comorbidities. The matched cohort included 9,697 inpatient and 9,697 outpatient DRF ORIF cases. Serious postoperative complications occurred in 16.8% of inpatient procedures versus 5.0% of outpatient procedures. Inpatient surgery was associated with higher odds of surgical site infection (OR 2.23, 95% CI: 1.78–2.79), wound dehiscence (OR 2.57, 95% CI: 1.07–6.17), and deep vein thrombosis (OR 7.75, 95% CI: 3.53–17.04). Inpatients also had greater odds of emergency department visits (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05–1.31), readmissions (OR 3.64, 95% CI: 2.91–4.54), reoperations (OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.70–2.73), and higher 90-day reimbursements. Inpatient DRF ORIF was associated with significantly higher complication rates and increased postoperative healthcare utilization compared with outpatient procedures, with the largest absolute differences seen in readmissions, reoperations, and 90-day reimbursements. These associations are unlikely to be causal, as inpatient admission typically reflects greater medical necessity and clinical complexity not fully captured by administrative data. Nonetheless, because admission status is readily available at the point of care, it may serve as a practical flag to identify patients who warrant closer post-discharge surveillance and individualized follow-up planning. III.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: