Coming soon

Home 9 Coming Soon 9 Level of Care for Surgical Procedures 2025-11-15

Level of Care for Surgical Procedures 2025-11-15

Link to PDF

Status: Revised Effective Date: 11/15/2025

Doc ID: SUR03-1125.1 Last Review Date: 04/21/2025

Approval and implementation dates for specific health plans may vary. Please consult the applicable health plan for more details.

Clinical Appropriateness Guidelines

Surgical Services

Appropriate Use Criteria: Level of Care for Surgical Procedures

“Site of Care,” “Site of Service” or another term such as “Setting” or “Place of Service” may be terms used in benefit plans, provider contracts, or other materials instead of or in addition to “Level of Care” and, in some plans, these terms may be used interchangeably.

Proprietary

© 2025 Carelon Medical Benefits Management, Inc. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Description and Application of the Guidelines

General Clinical Guideline

Level of Care for Surgical Procedures

Scope

Definitions

Guidelines

References

Appendix

Codes

History

Description and Application of the Guidelines

The Carelon Clinical Appropriateness Guidelines (hereinafter “the Carelon Clinical Appropriateness Guidelines” or the “Guidelines”) are designed to assist providers in making the most appropriate treatment decision for a specific clinical condition for an individual. The Guidelines establish objective and evidence-based criteria for medical necessity determinations, where possible, that can be used in support of the following:

  • To establish criteria for when services are medically necessary
  • To assist the practitioner as an educational tool
  • To encourage standardization of medical practice patterns
  • To curtail the performance of inappropriate and/or duplicate services
  • To address patient safety concerns
  • To enhance the quality of health care
  • To promote the most efficient and cost-effective use of services

The Carelon guideline development process complies with applicable accreditation and legal standards, including the requirement that the Guidelines be developed with involvement from appropriate providers with current clinical expertise relevant to the Guidelines under review and be based on the most up-to-date clinical principles and best practices. Resources reviewed include widely used treatment guidelines, randomized controlled trials or prospective cohort studies, and large systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Carelon reviews all of its Guidelines at least annually.

Carelon makes its Guidelines publicly available on its website. Copies of the Guidelines are also available upon oral or written request. Additional details, such as summaries of evidence, a list of the sources of evidence, and an explanation of the rationale that supports the adoption of the Guidelines, are included in each guideline document.

Although the Guidelines are publicly available, Carelon considers the Guidelines to be important, proprietary information of Carelon, which cannot be sold, assigned, leased, licensed, reproduced or distributed without the written consent of Carelon.

Carelon applies objective and evidence-based criteria, and takes individual circumstances and the local delivery system into account when determining the medical appropriateness of health care services. The Carelon Guidelines are just guidelines for the provision of specialty health services. These criteria are designed to guide both providers and reviewers to the most appropriate services based on a patient’s unique circumstances. In all cases, clinical judgment consistent with the standards of good medical practice should be used when applying the Guidelines. Guideline determinations are made based on the information provided at the time of the request. It is expected that medical necessity decisions may change as new information is provided or based on unique aspects of the patient’s condition. The treating clinician has final authority and responsibility for treatment decisions regarding the care of the patient and for justifying and demonstrating the existence of medical necessity for the requested service. The Guidelines are not a substitute for the experience and judgment of a physician or other health care professionals. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult the Guidelines is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient’s care or treatment.

The Guidelines do not address coverage, benefit or other plan specific issues. Applicable federal and state coverage mandates take precedence over these clinical guidelines, and in the case of reviews for Medicare Advantage Plans, the Guidelines are only applied where there are not fully established CMS criteria. If requested by a health plan, Carelon will review requests based on health plan medical policy/guidelines in lieu of the Carelon Guidelines. Pharmaceuticals, radiotracers, or medical devices used in any of the diagnostic or therapeutic interventions listed in the Guidelines must be FDA approved or conditionally approved for the intended use. However, use of an FDA approved or conditionally approved product does not constitute medical necessity or guarantee reimbursement by the respective health plan.

The Guidelines may also be used by the health plan or by Carelon for purposes of provider education, or to review the medical necessity of services by any provider who has been notified of the need for medical necessity review, due to billing practices or claims that are not consistent with other providers in terms of frequency or some other manner.

General Clinical Guideline

Clinical Appropriateness Framework

Critical to any finding of clinical appropriateness under the guidelines for a specific diagnostic or therapeutic intervention are the following elements:

  • Prior to any intervention, it is essential that the clinician confirm the diagnosis or establish its pretest likelihood based on a complete evaluation of the patient. This includes a history and physical examination and, where applicable, a review of relevant laboratory studies, diagnostic testing, and response to prior therapeutic intervention.
  • The anticipated benefit of the recommended intervention is likely to outweigh any potential harms, including from delay or decreased access to services that may result (net benefit).
  • Widely used treatment guidelines and/or current clinical literature and/or standards of medical practice should support that the recommended intervention offers the greatest net benefit among competing alternatives.
  • There exists a reasonable likelihood that the intervention will change management and/or lead to an improved outcome for the patient.

Providers may be required to submit clinical documentation in support of a request for services. Such documentation must a) accurately reflect the clinical situation at the time of the requested service, and b) sufficiently document the ordering provider’s clinical intent.

If these elements are not established with respect to a given request, the determination of appropriateness will most likely require a peer-to-peer conversation to understand the individual and unique facts that would justify a finding of clinical appropriateness. During the peer-to-peer conversation, factors such as patient acuity and setting of service may also be taken into account to the extent permitted by law.

Simultaneous Ordering of Multiple Diagnostic or Therapeutic Interventions

Requests for multiple diagnostic or therapeutic interventions at the same time will often require a peer-to-peer conversation to understand the individual circumstances that support the medical necessity of performing all interventions simultaneously. This is based on the fact that appropriateness of additional intervention is often dependent on the outcome of the initial intervention.

Additionally, either of the following may apply:

  • Current literature and/or standards of medical practice support that one of the requested diagnostic or therapeutic interventions is more appropriate in the clinical situation presented; or
  • One of the diagnostic or therapeutic interventions requested is more likely to improve patient outcomes based on current literature and/or standards of medical practice.

Repeat Diagnostic Intervention

In general, repeated testing of the same anatomic location for the same indication should be limited to evaluation following an intervention, or when there is a change in clinical status such that additional testing is required to determine next steps in management. At times, it may be necessary to repeat a test using different techniques or protocols to clarify a finding or result of the original study.

Repeated testing for the same indication using the same or similar technology may be subject to additional review or require peer-to-peer conversation in the following scenarios:

  • Repeated diagnostic testing at the same facility due to technical issues
  • Repeated diagnostic testing requested at a different facility due to provider preference or quality concerns
  • Repeated diagnostic testing of the same anatomic area based on persistent symptoms with no clinical change, treatment, or intervention since the previous study
  • Repeated diagnostic testing of the same anatomic area by different providers for the same member over a short period of time

Repeat Therapeutic Intervention

In general, repeated therapeutic intervention in the same anatomic area is considered appropriate when the prior intervention proved effective or beneficial and the expected duration of relief has lapsed. A repeat intervention requested prior to the expected duration of relief is not appropriate unless it can be confirmed that the prior intervention was never administered. Requests for on-going services may depend on completion of previously authorized services in situations where a patient’s response to authorized services is relevant to a determination of clinical appropriateness.

Level of Care for Surgical Procedures

“Site of Care,” “Site of Service” or another term such as “Setting” or “Place of Service” may be terms used in benefit plans, provider contracts, or other materials instead of or in addition to “Level of Care” and, in some plans, these terms may be used interchangeably.

Scope

Evidence is growing that supports the safety and effectiveness of the outpatient surgery setting for many surgical procedures. Procedures that have historically been performed in the inpatient setting are now being successfully performed in the outpatient surgery setting. Factors that have contributed to this movement include:

  • Equal or better outcomes compared to inpatient setting
  • Minimal invasive techniques and improved surgical technologies
  • Improved anesthesia techniques and more effective postoperative pain management
  • Lower costs and operational efficiency

Appropriate patient selection for the outpatient setting is paramount. It may be medically necessary for patients with certain risk factors and/or undergoing certain procedures to have an inpatient setting admission postoperatively.

The intent of this guideline is to identify clinical scenarios in which pre-planned inpatient admission is medically necessary for non-emergent procedures. It is expected that a patient undergoing a scheduled, non-emergent procedure will be medically optimized, and that inpatient admission would not be required due solely to any social determinants of health that could reasonably be expected to be mitigated through preoperative planning (such as equipment or supervision required at home, etc.).

  • This guideline does not attempt to address the indications that warrant either planned or unplanned admission for an observation-level stay, which may be needed to monitor for immediate post-operative complications or meet discharge criteria.
  • This guideline does not address the clinical appropriateness of an inpatient admission that results from a patient’s intraoperative or observation-stay course that was not known or anticipated prior to surgery.
  • This guideline is intended to be used for procedures that are routinely performed on an outpatient basis. It is expected that as surgical techniques and clinical evidence advances, a greater variety of procedures may be eligible for review under this guideline. The applicable code set that falls within the scope of this guideline is at the discretion of the managing health plan.

In order to support a pre-planned inpatient admission, a provider may be asked to submit supporting medical documentation such as:

  • Provider office notes detailing preoperative medical optimization
  • List of managed or unmanaged comorbidities and/or other surgical risk factors
  • If requested, the specific reason for an inpatient preoperative day
  • Copies of medical consultations or clearances
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (see Appendix), Charlson Comorbidity Index score, or other validated surgical risk score, if necessary, to support the requested level of care

This guideline does not address the medical necessity of the procedure itself. The prior authorization process for medical necessity of the surgical procedure is completed separately and precedes the level of care determination. The procedure must meet any applicable clinical appropriateness guideline for prior to level of care determination.

Definitions

Outpatient Surgical Setting

An outpatient surgical procedure is defined as one where a patient arrives and is registered at a setting other than the acute inpatient hospital setting, undergoes the procedure, and is discharged the same day or within the timeframe for observation defined by patient’s health plan contract and/or local government regulatory agency. Such settings may include Observation Care, Hospital Outpatient Department (on or off campus), Ambulatory Surgical Center, or Physician Office. For the purposes of this guideline, procedures performed in a Physician Office are out of scope.

Observation Surgical Setting

Observation is a special form of hospital outpatient care that provides interim services in place of an inpatient admission to allow for a reasonable period of time to evaluate and determine the need for further treatment or for inpatient admission. There is evidence that the characteristics of observation care in clinical practice differ from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition and that use of observation care is growing with short inpatient stays being the third most common reason to admit for observation. Individual cases admitted to Observation Care may undergo concurrent clinical review to assess the need for transfer to acute inpatient setting. Maximum length of stay in Observation Care is governed by the patient’s health plan contract and/or local government regulatory agency.

Surgeons who request inpatient admission for an outpatient procedure and who decline Observation Care will need to provide clinical documentation to support the need for direct admission to an acute inpatient setting.

Inpatient Surgical Setting

The inpatient surgical setting, rather than the outpatient setting, is required only if the patient’s safety or health would be significantly and directly threatened if care were provided in a less intensive setting. The selection of surgical setting is not justified when it is solely for the convenience of the patient, the patient’s family, or the provider.

Guidelines

Acute Inpatient Surgical Setting

The acute inpatient surgical setting may be considered medically necessary when ONE of the following requirements are met:

  • Current postoperative care requirements are of such intensity or duration that they cannot be met in an observation or outpatient surgical setting such as:
    • Monitoring or management of hemodynamic, cardiorespiratory, vascular, neurologic, or laboratory status
  • Anticipated postoperative care requirements cannot be met, even initially, in an observational surgical setting due to the complexity, duration, or extent of the planned procedure or substantial preoperative patient risk such as:
    • Required hemodynamic, cardiorespiratory, vascular, neurologic, or laboratory monitoring and/or management
    • Preoperative ASA status ≥ IV
    • Patient’s home (or other discharge location such as family, friend, or other accommodations) will be of such significant distance from the nearest hospital emergency room as to pose a clinically significant risk should an emergent or urgent post-operative complication develop
    • Inability to establish clinically appropriate supervision and support within the patient’s home (or other discharge location such as family, friend, or other accommodations) despite expected preoperative care coordination efforts even after hospital-based observation

References

  1. Observation or inpatient? get it right up front. Hosp Case Manag. 2012;20(1):1-3.
  2. Abdallah DY, Jadaan MM, McCabe JP. Body mass index and risk of surgical site infection following spine surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(12):2800-9.
  3. Abdellatif AM, MM ALT, Rady MH, et al. Appropriateness of hospital admissions in a university hospital in Egypt: Analyzing a preintervention phase. Indian J Public Health. 2022;66(2):113-20.
  4. Adamson T, Godil SS, Mehrlich M, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting compared with the inpatient hospital setting: analysis of 1000 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(6):878-84.
  5. Aftab H, Fagerland MW, Gondal G, et al. Gastric sleeve resection as day-case surgery: what affects the discharge time? Surg. 2019;15(12):2018-24.
  6. Ahmad NZ, Byrnes G, Naqvi SA. A meta-analysis of ambulatory versus inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(9):1928-34.
  7. Ahmed AF, Hantouly A, Toubasi A, et al. The safety of outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2021;45(3):697-710.
  8. Akhtar M, Razick D, Mamidi D, et al. Complications, Readmissions, and Reoperations in Outpatient vs Inpatient Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2024;9(3):24730114241264569.
  9. Al-Hussaini A, Walijee H, Khan A, et al. Day-case septoplasty: a default pathway or is case selection the key? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272(1):91-5.
  10. Allahabadi S, Cheung EC, Hodax JD, et al. Outpatient Shoulder Arthroplasty-A Systematic Review. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2021;5:24715492211028025.
  11. Al-Masrouri S, Alnumay A, Vourtzoumis P, et al. Ambulatory sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective feasibility and comparative study of early postoperative morbidity. Surg Endosc. 2023;37(7):5553-60.
  12. Alqahtani AR, Elahmedi M, Amro N, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as day-case surgery versus conventional hospitalization: results of the DAYSLEEVE randomized clinical trial. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2022;18(9):1141-9.
  13. Alshahrani MS, Babiker AM, Alsuhaibani YA. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as a hybrid day care procedure: a case series of the first 53 patients at a tertiary care center. Updates Surg. 2023;75(8):2127-32.
  14. Altman KM, Workman S, Price MR. Comparing patient outcomes following outpatient total joint arthroplasty in a hospital setting versus an ambulatory surgery center. J Orthop. 2025;65:112-8.
  15. Al-Zuhir N, Wong J, Nammuni I, et al. Selection, thirty day outcome and costs for short stay endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (SEVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43(6):662-5.
  16. Arshi A, Park HY, Blumstein GW, et al. Outpatient Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Population-Based Analysis of Trends and Complication Rates. Spine. 2018;43(22):1559-65.
  17. Audet N, Leclerc JE, Iordanescu V. Consensus on ambulatory care among Quebec otolaryngologists. J Otolaryngol. 1999;28(1):43-8.
  18. Azad TD, Shah PP, Kannapadi NV, et al. Reexamining the Role of Postoperative ICU Admission for Patients Undergoing Elective Craniotomy: A Systematic Review. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(9):1380-93.
  19. Balciscueta I, Barbera F, Lorenzo J, et al. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of failure. Surgery. 2021;170(2):373-82.
  20. Ban D, Liu Y, Cao T, et al. Safety of outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Med Res. 2016;21(1):34.
  21. Basques BA, Erickson BJ, Leroux T, et al. Comparative outcomes of outpatient and inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of the Medicare dataset. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(7):934-8.
  22. Bennett AM, Clark AB, Bath AP, et al. Meta-analysis of the timing of haemorrhage after tonsillectomy: an important factor in determining the safety of performing tonsillectomy as a day case procedure. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005;30(5):418-23.
  23. Benoilid M, Rayess Y, Barbera F, et al. Is brachioplasty acceptable as an outpatient procedure? A prospective study comparing ambulatory and traditional hospitalization procedures. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2020;65(4):294-9.
  24. Bernatz JT, Anderson PA. Thirty-day readmission rates in spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg. 2015;39(4):E7.
  25. Berstock JR, Beswick AD, Lenguerrand E, et al. Mortality after total hip replacement surgery: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res. 2014;3(6):175-82.
  26. Best NM, Sasso RC. Outpatient lumbar spine decompression in 233 patients 65 years of age or older. Spine. 2007;32(10):1135-9; discussion 40.
  27. Bjorkman DJ, Zaman A, Fennerty MB, et al. Urgent vs. elective endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper-GI bleeding: an effectiveness study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(1):1-8.
  28. Bovonratwet P, Ottesen TD, Gala RJ, et al. Outpatient elective posterior lumbar fusions appear to be safely considered for appropriately selected patients. Spine J. 2018;18(7):1188-96.
  29. Bovonratwet P, Webb ML, Ondeck NT, et al. Definitional Differences of ‘Outpatient’ Versus ‘Inpatient’ THA and TKA Can Affect Study Outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2917-25.
  30. Bradley B, Middleton S, Davis N, et al. Discharge on the day of surgery following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty within the United Kingdom NHS. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(6):788-92.
  31. Brantley RA, Thuman J, Hudson T, et al. Same Day Discharge After Mastectomy and Immediate Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. Ann Plast Surg. 2023;90(6S Suppl 4):S395-S402.
  32. Brennan MP, Webber AM, Patel CV, et al. Care of the Pediatric Patient for Ambulatory Tonsillectomy With or Without Adenoidectomy: The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Position Statement. Anesth Analg. 2024;139(3):509-20.
  33. Brigger MT, Brietzke SE. Outpatient tonsillectomy in children: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;135(1):1-7.
  34. Brolin TJ, Mulligan RP, Azar FM, et al. Neer Award 2016: Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty in an ambulatory surgery center is a safe alternative to inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty in a hospital: a matched cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):204-8.
  35. Brooks JA, Cunningham MJ, Hughes AL, et al. Postoperative Disposition Following Pediatric Sistrunk Procedures: A National Database Query. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(7):E2352-E5.
  36. Cancienne JM, Brockmeier SF, Gulotta LV, et al. Ambulatory Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Trends, Complications, Readmissions, and Costs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(8):629-37.
  37. Cao X, White PF, Ma H. Perioperative Care of Elderly Surgical Outpatients. Drugs Aging. 2017;34(9):673-89.
  38. Carbone A, Vervaecke AJ, Ye IB, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: A cost and outcome comparison in a comorbidity matched analysis. J Orthop. 2021;28:126-33.
  39. Cash CL, Frazee RC, Smith RW, et al. Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Am Surg. 2012;78(2):213-5.
  40. Ceban F, Yan E, Pivetta B, et al. Perioperative adverse events in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing ambulatory surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2024;96:111464.
  41. Chen X, Chen A, Liu C, et al. Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison Between Ambulatory Surgery Versus Traditional Hospitalization Based on the Propensity Score Matching Method. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023;47(2):584-92.
  42. Chin KR, Pencle FJ, Coombs AV, et al. Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Patient Selection and Outcome Measures Compared With an Inhospital Cohort. Spine. 2016;41(8):686-92.
  43. Christiansen UJ, Kruse AR, Olesen PG, et al. Outpatient vs inpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(11):1420-8.
  44. Cimino AM, Hawkins JK, McGwin G, et al. Is outpatient shoulder arthroplasty safe? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(8):1968-76.
  45. Colvin AC, Egorova N, Harrison AK, et al. National trends in rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):227-33.
  46. Cooper S, Patel S, Wynn M, et al. Outcomes of same-day discharge in bariatric surgery. Surg Endosc. 2024;38(9):5122-9.
  47. Cordeiro E, Zhong T, Jackson T, et al. The safety of same-day breast reconstructive surgery: An analysis of short-term outcomes. Am J Surg. 2017;214(3):495-500.
  48. Courtney PM, Boniello AJ, Berger RA. Complications Following Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of a National Database. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1426-30.
  49. Daher M, Cobvarrubias O, Boufadel P, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and adverse events. Int Orthop. 2025;49(1):151-65.
  50. Davey C, Chen L, Hwang H. Patient, operative and pain management factors influencing inpatient compared with surgical day care mastectomy procedures at a community hospital. Can J Surg. 2023;66(4):E403-E8.
  51. De Beule J, Vandenneucker H, Claes S, et al. Can anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction be performed routinely in day clinic? Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80(3):391-6.
  52. de Gabory L, Serrano E, Lecanu JB, et al. French Otorhinolaryngology Society guidelines for day-case nasal surgery. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2015;132(1):35-40.
  53. de Gabory L, Sowerby LJ, DelGaudio JM, et al. International survey and consensus (ICON) on ambulatory surgery in rhinology. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2018;135(1S):S49-S53.
  54. de Wijkerslooth EML, Bakas JM, van Rosmalen J, et al. Same-day discharge after appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36(6):1297-309.
  55. Debono B, Sabatier P, Garnault V, et al. Outpatient Lumbar Microdiscectomy in France: From an Economic Imperative to a Clinical Standard-An Observational Study of 201 Cases. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:891-7.
  56. Dedden SJ, Geomini P, Huirne JAF, et al. Vaginal and Laparoscopic hysterectomy as an outpatient procedure: A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;216:212-23.
  57. Deffain A, Denis R, Alfaris H, et al. Anastomotic metabolic and bariatric surgeries with same-day discharge: 30-day outcomes of a cohort from a high-volume center in Canada. Surg. 2024;20(12):1306-13.
  58. Di Capua J, Somani S, Kim JS, et al. Analysis of Risk Factors for Major Complications Following Elective Posterior Lumbar Fusion. Spine. 2017;42(17):1347-54.
  59. Dolivet E, Foulon A, Simonet T, et al. AMeTHYST (AMbulatory HYsterectomy surgery). Feasibility of minimally invasive outpatient hysterectomy, a preliminary study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;252:412-7.
  60. Doran HE, England J, Palazzo F. Questionable safety of thyroid surgery with same day discharge. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012;94(8):543-7.
  61. Dreifuss NH, Vanetta C, Schlottmann F, et al. Is Same-Day Discharge After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Safe? A Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis. Obes Surg. 2022;32(12):3900-7.
  62. Dreifuss NH, Xie J, Schlottmann F, et al. Risk Factors for Readmission After Same-Day Discharge Sleeve Gastrectomy: a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis. Obes Surg. 2022;32(4):962-9.
  63. Elliott JA, Patel VM, Kirresh A, et al. Fast-track laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Updates Surg. 2013;65(2):85-94.
  64. Emami A, Faloon M, Issa K, et al. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting. Orthopedics. 2016;39(6):e1218-e22.
  65. Erickson BJ, Shishani Y, Jones S, et al. Outpatient vs. inpatient reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: outcomes and complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(6):1115-20.
  66. Ernst AA, Jones J, Weiss SJ, et al. Emergency department orthopedics observation unit as an alternative to admission. South Med J. 2014;107(10):648-53.
  67. Fallah A, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG, et al. Admission and acute complication rate for outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy. Can J Neurol Sci. 2010;37(1):49-53.
  68. Fei Q, Li J, Lin J, et al. Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infection After Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. World neurosurg. 2016;95:507-15.
  69. Galata G, Alexandrou K, Talat N, et al. Defining the feasibility of same day adrenalectomy – A prospective matched cohort study. Surg Open Sci. 2023;14:75-80.
  70. Gartland RM, Fuentes E, Fazendin J, et al. Safety of outpatient adrenalectomy across 3 minimally invasive approaches at 2 academic medical centers. Surgery. 2021;169(1):145-9.
  71. Gauthier-Kwan OY, Dobransky JS, Dervin GF. Quality of Recovery, Postdischarge Hospital Utilization, and 2-Year Functional Outcomes After an Outpatient Total Knee Arthroplasty Program. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7):2159-64.e1.
  72. Gignoux B, Blanchet MC, Lanz T, et al. Should ambulatory appendectomy become the standard treatment for acute appendicitis? World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13:28.
  73. Gowda S, Leong WS, Edafe O. Day-case discharge criteria and safety of children undergoing adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy for obstructive symptoms-A systematic review. Clin Otolaryngol. 2022;47(5):553-60.
  74. Goyal N, Chen AF, Padgett SE, et al. Otto Aufranc Award: A Multicenter, Randomized Study of Outpatient versus Inpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2017;475(2):364-72.
  75. Gromov K, Jorgensen CC, Petersen PB, et al. Complications and readmissions following outpatient total hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective 2-center study with matched controls. Acta Orthop. 2019;90(3):281-5.
  76. Guareschi AS, Eichinger JK, Friedman RJ. Patient outcomes after revision total shoulder arthroplasty in an inpatient vs. outpatient setting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;09:09.
  77. Guerin S, Nyangoh Timoh K, Khene ZE, et al. Outpatient laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: Feasibility and patient satisfaction. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021;50(7):102118.
  78. Gurusamy K, Junnarkar S, Farouk M, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2008;95(2):161-8.
  79. Gutierrez R, Neill CO, Khanna A, et al. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair as same day surgery: Feasibility, short-term outcomes and costs. Am J Surg. 2020;220(6):1438-44.
  80. Hanley SC, Steinmetz O, Mathieu ES, et al. Safety and feasibility of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair as day surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(6):1709-15.
  81. Hanna L, Rodway AD, Garcha P, et al. Safety and procedural success of daycase-based endovascular procedures in lower extremity arteries of patients with peripheral artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;75:102788.
  82. Hao XY, Shen YF, Wei YG, et al. Safety and effectiveness of day-surgery laparoscopic cholecystectomy is still uncertain: meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials based on GRADE approach. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):4950-63.
  83. Hauguel A, Maurel B, Bague N, et al. Management of ambulatory (day case) endovascular procedures for peripheral arterial disease. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017;58(2):293-304.
  84. Helseth O, Lied B, Halvorsen CM, et al. Outpatient Cervical and Lumbar Spine Surgery is Feasible and Safe: A Consecutive Single Center Series of 1449 Patients. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(6):728-37; discussion 37-8.
  85. Ho C, Spry C. Day Surgery versus Overnight Stay for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and Laparoscopic Hernia Repair: A Review of Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017 Jun 14. PMID: 29634171.
  86. Ho JCE, Goel AR, Fung AH, et al. Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2024;18(1):202.
  87. Hoffmann JD, Kusnezov NA, Dunn JC, et al. The Shift to Same-Day Outpatient Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(4):1265-74.
  88. Hofstede SN, Gademan MG, Vliet Vlieland TP, et al. Preoperative predictors for outcomes after total hip replacement in patients with osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:212.
  89. Hu QL, Livhits MJ, Ko CY, et al. Same-day discharge is not associated with increased readmissions or complications after thyroid operations. Surgery. 2020;167(1):117-23.
  90. Huang A, Ryu JJ, Dervin G. Cost savings of outpatient versus standard inpatient total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2017;60(1):57-62.
  91. Huddleston HP, Mehta N, Polce EM, et al. Complication rates and outcomes after outpatient shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. JSES Int. 2021;5(3):413-23.
  92. Iyengar JJ, Samagh SP, Schairer W, et al. Current trends in rotator cuff repair: surgical technique, setting, and cost. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(3):284-8.
  93. Jenny JY, Godet J, de Ladoucette A. Complication Rates Are Not Higher After Outpatient Versus Inpatient Fast-Track Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Matched Prospective Comparative Study. J Arthroplasty. 2024;39(10):2458-65.
  94. Jiang J, Teng Y, Fan Z, et al. Does obesity affect the surgical outcome and complication rates of spinal surgery? A meta-analysis. Clin Orthop. 2014;472(3):968-75.
  95. Johnson K, Lane BR, Weizer AZ, et al. Partial nephrectomy should be classified as an inpatient procedure: Results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(4):239.e9-.e16.
  96. Joshi GP, Ahmad S, Riad W, et al. Selection of obese patients undergoing ambulatory surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Anesth Analg. 2013;117(5):1082-91.
  97. Joshi GP, Ankichetty SP, Gan TJ, et al. Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia consensus statement on preoperative selection of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea scheduled for ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2012;115(5):1060-8.
  98. Kadhim M, Gans I, Baldwin K, et al. Do Surgical Times and Efficiency Differ Between Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Centers That are Both Hospital Owned? J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(4):423-8.
  99. Kagerbauer SM, Wisler J, Blobner M, et al. Anaesthesiologists’ guideline adherence in pre-operative evaluation: a retrospective observational study. Perioper Med (Lond). 2024;13(1):64.
  100. Kim DK, Feuer GB, Warner PE, et al. Predictors of extended length of stay following outpatient reduction mammaplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024;94:141-9.
  101. Kisic-Trope J, Qvigstad E, Ballard K. A randomized trial of day-case vs inpatient laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):307.e1-8.
  102. Klapwijk LC, Mathijssen NM, Van Egmond JC, et al. The first 6 weeks of recovery after primary total hip arthroplasty with fast track. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(2):140-4.
  103. Kolisek FR, McGrath MS, Jessup NM, et al. Comparison of outpatient versus inpatient total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2009;467(6):1438-42.
  104. Kort NP, Bemelmans YFL, van der Kuy PHM, et al. Patient selection criteria for outpatient joint arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(9):2668-75.
  105. Kucharik MP, Varady NH, Best MJ, et al. Comparison of outpatient vs. inpatient anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis of 20,035 procedures. JSES Int. 2022;6(1):15-20.
  106. Kunutsor SK, Whitehouse MR, Blom AW, et al. Patient-Related Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Joint Infection after Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PloS one. 2016;11(3):e0150866.
  107. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong KL, et al. Infection risk for primary and revision instrumented lumbar spine fusion in the Medicare population. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(4):342-7.
  108. Kuuskeri M, Suorsa ET, Luukkaala TH, et al. Day surgery in reduction mammaplasty – saving money or increasing complications? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;76:174-9.
  109. Lamo-Espinosa JM, Mariscal G, Gomez-Alvarez J, et al. Causes and risk factors for same-day discharge failure after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):12627.
  110. Lang SS, Chen HI, Koch MJ, et al. Development of an outpatient protocol for lumbar discectomy: our institutional experience. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(5):897-901.
  111. Lassen PD, Moeller-Larsen H, P DEN. Same-day discharge after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(11):1339-41.
  112. Lee DK, Kim HJ, Lee DH. Incidence of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Venous Thromboembolism following TKA in Rheumatoid Arthritis versus Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis. PloS one. 2016;11(12):e0166844.
  113. Lefevre N, Klouche S, de Pamphilis O, et al. Postoperative discomfort after outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(2):163-6.
  114. Leroux TS, Basques BA, Frank RM, et al. Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: a population-based study comparing adverse event and readmission rates to inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(11):1780-6.
  115. Li J, Li Y, Cao D, et al. Outpatient vs Inpatient Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Evidence-Based Analysis of Comparative Outcomes. J Endourol. 2022;36(4):468-76.
  116. Lied B, Sundseth J, Helseth E. Immediate (0-6 h), early (6-72 h) and late (>72 h) complications after anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for cervical disc degeneration; discharge six hours after operation is feasible. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2008;150(2):111-8; discussion 8.
  117. Lim S, Carabini LM, Kim RB, et al. Evaluation of American Society of Anesthesiologists classification as 30-day morbidity predictor after single-level elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2017;17(3):313-20.
  118. Little AK, Patmon DL, Sandhu H, et al. Inpatient versus Outpatient Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: Recent Trends, Outcomes, and Safety. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(9):e5135.
  119. Liu FY, Yang DL, Huang WZ, et al. Risk factors for dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(10):e6267.
  120. Liu JT, Briner RP, Friedman JA. Comparison of inpatient vs. outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective case series. BMC surg. 2009;9:3.
  121. Lonnrot K, Taimela S, Satopaa J, et al. Ambulatory Care vs Overnight Hospitalization After Anterior Surgery for Cervical Radiculopathy: The FACADE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA netw. 2024;7(11):e2447459.
  122. Lovald ST, Ong KL, Malkani AL, et al. Complications, mortality, and costs for outpatient and short-stay total knee arthroplasty patients in comparison to standard-stay patients. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):510-5.
  123. Lovecchio F, Alvi H, Sahota S, et al. Is Outpatient Arthroplasty as Safe as Fast-Track Inpatient Arthroplasty? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(9 Suppl):197-201.
  124. Lyman S, Koulouvaris P, Sherman S, et al. Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(10):2321-8.
  125. Maheux-Lacroix S, Lemyre M, Couture V, et al. Feasibility and safety of outpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. 2015;19(1):e2014.00251.
  126. Malahias MA, Kokkineli S, Gu A, et al. Day case versus inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Shoulder Elbow. 2021;13(5):471-81.
  127. Maletis GB, Inacio MC, Reynolds S, et al. Incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after elective knee arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(8):714-20.
  128. Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, et al. Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2363-70.
  129. Marckmann M, Krarup PM, Henriksen NA, et al. Enhanced recovery after robotic ventral hernia repair: factors associated with overnight stay in hospital. Hernia. 2024;28(1):223-31.
  130. Mariette C, Pessaux P. Ambulatory laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(9):2859-64.
  131. Martin B, Gutierrez Y, Nwose J, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Total Elbow Arthroplasty in Outpatient Versus Inpatient Settings. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e72378.
  132. Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, et al. Incidence and risk factors for early wound complications after spinal arthrodesis in children: analysis of 30-day follow-up data from the ACS-NSQIP. Spine. 2014;39(18):1463-70.
  133. Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, et al. Thirty-Day Morbidity After Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Identification of Risk Factors and Emphasis on the Safety of Outpatient Procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(15):1288-94.
  134. Marxen T, Shauly O, Losken A. The Safety of Same-day Discharge after Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(7):e4448.
  135. Mattila K, Hynynen M. Day surgery in Finland: a prospective cohort study of 14 day-surgery units. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(4):455-63.
  136. McGirt MJ, Godil SS, Asher AL, et al. Quality analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient versus inpatient setting: analysis of 7288 patients from the NSQIP database. Neurosurg. 2015;39(6):E9.
  137. McLemore EC, Lee L, Hedrick TL, et al. Same day discharge following elective, minimally invasive, colorectal surgery : A review of enhanced recovery protocols and early outcomes by the SAGES Colorectal Surgical Committee with recommendations regarding patient selection, remote monitoring, and successful implementation. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(11):7898-914.
  138. Mehrazin R, Bortnick E, Say R, et al. Ambulatory Robotic-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Safety and Feasibility Study. Urology. 2020;143:137-41.
  139. Meyr AJ, Skolnik J, Mateen S, et al. A Comparison of Adverse Short-Term Outcomes Following Forefoot Amputation Performed on an Inpatient Versus Outpatient Basis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;61(1):67-71.
  140. Miller A, Jain NS, Wells MW, et al. Same-Day Discharge for Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153(4):683e-9e.
  141. Mohamedahmed AY, Zaman S, Das N, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis: time to change traditional practice. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2024;39(1):47.
  142. Mohan AT, MacArthur TA, Murphy B, et al. Patient Experience and Clinical Outcomes after Same-day Outpatient Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction Protocol during the Global Pandemic. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2023;11(7):e5183.
  143. Montross BC, O’Brien-Irr MS, Koudoumas D, et al. The selection of patients for ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair of elective asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72(4):1347-53.
  144. Mulligan RP, Parekh SG. Safety of Outpatient Total Ankle Arthroplasty vs Traditional Inpatient Admission or Overnight Observation. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(8):825-31.
  145. Nahas S, Feigenberg T, Park S. Feasibility and safety of same-day discharge after minimally invasive hysterectomy in gynecologic oncology: A systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):439-42.
  146. Naumann DN, Zaman S, Daskalakis M, et al. Day surgery for achalasia cardia: Time for consensus? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2016;98(2):150-4.
  147. Nelson SJ, Webb ML, Lukasiewicz AM, et al. Is Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty Safe? J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1439-42.
  148. Ng R, Mullin EJ, Maddern GJ. Systematic review of day-case laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(3):160-4.
  149. Nguyen AT, Hu VJ, Clark RC, et al. How low can we go: Achieving postoperative day 1 discharge after deep inferior epigastric perforator, a safe and feasible goal. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025;102:152-8.
  150. Nunns M, Shaw L, Briscoe S, et al. Multicomponent hospital-led interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective surgery: a systematic review. NIHR Journals Library. 2019;12:12.
  151. Ode GE, Odum S, Connor PM, et al. Ambulatory versus inpatient shoulder arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of trends, outcomes, and charges. JSES Int. 2020;4(1):127-32.
  152. Orsini A, Lasorsa F, Bignante G, et al. Outpatient Robotic Urological Surgery: An Evidence-based Analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2024;19:19.
  153. Ortega A, Sarmiento JM, Patil C, et al. Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2015;76(6):443-50.
  154. Overman RA, Freburger JK, Assimon MM, et al. Observation stays in administrative claims databases: underestimation of hospitalized cases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23(9):902-10.
  155. Oxley PJ, McNeely C, Janzen R, et al. Successful same day discharge after immediate post-mastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: A single tertiary centre retrospective audit. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73(6):1068-74.
  156. Parcells BW, Giacobbe D, Macknet D, et al. Total Joint Arthroplasty in a Stand-alone Ambulatory Surgical Center: Short-term Outcomes. Orthopedics. 2016;39(4):223-8.
  157. Penner KR, Fleming ND, Barlavi L, et al. Same-day discharge is feasible and safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for gynecologic malignancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(2):186.e1-8.
  158. Perera E, Flood B, Madden K, et al. A systematic review of clinical outcomes for outpatient vs. inpatient shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2022;14(5):523-33.
  159. Pham CT, Gibb CL, Fitridge RA, et al. Effectiveness of preoperative medical consultations by internal medicine physicians: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e018632.
  160. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, et al. Outpatient surgery reduces short-term complications in lumbar discectomy: an analysis of 4310 patients from the ACS-NSQIP database. Spine. 2013;38(3):264-71.
  161. Puvanesarajah V, Nourbakhsh A, Hassanzadeh H, et al. Readmission Rates, Reasons, and Risk Factors in Elderly Patients Treated With Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Pathology. Spine. 2016;41(24):1933-8.
  162. Puzzitiello RN, Moverman MA, Pagani NR, et al. Current Status Regarding the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Hss J. 2022;18(3):428-38.
  163. Qin C, Antony AK, Aggarwal A, et al. Assessing Outcomes and Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Tissue Expander Immediate Breast Reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(11):3724-9.
  164. Rebibo L, Maurice KK, Nimier M, et al. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy as day-case surgery: a review of the literature. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2019;15(7):1211-7.
  165. Root KT, Hones KM, Hao KA, et al. A Systematic Review of Patient Selection Criteria for Outpatient Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2024;55(3):363-81.
  166. Rossi NA, Spaude J, Ohlstein JF, et al. Apnea-hypopnea index severity as an independent predictor of post-tonsillectomy respiratory complications in pediatric patients: A retrospective study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2024;103(7):424-9.
  167. Rourke K, Halyk LJ, MacNeil J, et al. Perioperative protocols in ambulatory breast reconstruction: A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2023;85:252-63.
  168. Ryan R, Davoren J, Grant H, et al. 23-hour care centre: changing the culture of care. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2005;22(4):8-13.
  169. Salasky V, Yang RL, Datta J, et al. Racial disparities in the use of outpatient mastectomy. J Surg Res. 2014;186(1):16-22.
  170. Sanabria D, Rodriguez J, Pecci P, et al. Same-Day Discharge in Minimally Invasive Surgery Performed by Gynecologic Oncologists: A Review of Patient Selection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(4):816-25.
  171. Sandler AB, Scanaliato JP, Narimissaei D, et al. The transition to outpatient shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31(7):e315-e31.
  172. Sansone JM, del Rio AM, Anderson PA. The prevalence of and specific risk factors for venous thromboembolic disease following elective spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(2):304-13.
  173. Saouli A, Rahota RG, Ziouziou I, et al. Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2022;40(6):1367-75.
  174. Schoenfeld AJ, Reamer EN, Wynkoop EI, et al. Does Patient Sex Affect the Rate of Mortality and Complications After Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop. 2015;473(8):2479-86.
  175. Schuttler S, Andjelkov N. Articular cartilage surgery in outpatients: a pilot study. J Knee Surg. 2011;24(2):125-7.
  176. Schwappach DL, Strasmann TJ. Does location matter? A study of the public’s preferences for surgical care provision. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(2):259-64.
  177. Servin F. Ambulatory anesthesia for the obese patient. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006;19(6):597-9.
  178. Shaker H, Leena N, Mayers V, et al. Day-case approach to immediate breast reconstruction: pushing the boundaries of ambulatory breast surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2021;103(6):426-31.
  179. Shariq OA, Bews KA, McKenna NP, et al. Is same-day discharge associated with increased 30-day postoperative complications and readmissions in patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy? Surgery. 2021;169(2):289-97.
  180. Sheehy AM, Graf B, Gangireddy S, et al. Hospitalized but not admitted: characteristics of patients with “observation status” at an academic medical center. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):1991-8.
  181. Si HB, Zeng Y, Shen B, et al. The influence of body mass index on the outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(6):1824-32.
  182. Sibia US, Klune JR, Turcotte JJ, et al. Hospital-Based Same-Day Compared to Overnight-Stay Mastectomy: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis. Ochsner J. 2022;22(2):139-45.
  183. Simon CB, Coronado RA, Greenfield WH, 3rd, et al. Predicting Pain and Disability After Shoulder Arthroscopy: Rotator Cuff Tear Severity and Concomitant Arthroscopic Procedures. Clin J Pain. 2016;32(5):404-10.
  184. Siragusa L, Pellino G, Sensi B, et al. Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomies: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis. 2023;25(6):1102-15.
  185. Smith WD, Wohns RN, Christian G, et al. Outpatient Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody: Fusion Predictive Factors and Clinical Results. Spine. 2016;41 Suppl 8:S106-22.
  186. Somani S, Di Capua J, Kim JS, et al. Comparing National Inpatient Sample and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: An Independent Risk Factor Analysis for Risk Stratification in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion. Spine. 2017;42(8):565-72.
  187. Specht MC, Kelly BN, Tomczyk E, et al. One-Year Experience of Same-Day Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Protocol. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(9):5711-9.
  188. Springer BD, Odum SM, Vegari DN, et al. Impact of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty on 30-Day Hospital Readmission Rates and Unplanned Episodes of Care. Orthop Clin North Am. 2017;48(1):15-23.
  189. Stevens WG, Gear AJ, Stoker DA, et al. Outpatient reduction mammaplasty: an eleven-year experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28(2):171-9.
  190. Stieber JR, Brown K, Donald GD, et al. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion with plate fixation as an outpatient procedure. Spine J. 2005;5(5):503-7.
  191. Sturiale CL, Rossetto M, Ermani M, et al. Remote cerebellar hemorrhage after spinal procedures (part 2): a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev. 2016;39(3):369-76.
  192. Tan TP, Govindarajulu AP, Massicotte EM, et al. Vocal cord palsy after anterior cervical spine surgery: a qualitative systematic review. Spine J. 2014;14(7):1332-42.
  193. Tang H, Dong A, Yan L. Day surgery versus overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(7):556-61.
  194. Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Cote P, et al. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(1):77-99.
  195. Thoen CW, Saele M, Strandberg RB, et al. Patients’ experiences of day surgery and recovery: A meta-ethnography. Nurs Open. 2024;11(1):e2055.
  196. Thomas H, Agrawal S. Systematic review of day-case laparoscopic fundoplication. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(9):781-8.
  197. Thomas H, Agrawal S. Systematic review of 23-hour (outpatient) stay laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2011;21(8):677-81.
  198. Thomas RL, Winkler N, Carr BR, et al. Abdominal myomectomy–a safe procedure in an ambulatory setting. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2277-80.
  199. Trejo-Avila M, Cardenas-Lailson E, Valenzuela-Salazar C, et al. Ambulatory versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(8):1359-68.
  200. Trudeau MT, Peters JJ, LeVasseur MR, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient shoulder arthroplasty outcomes: A propensity score matched risk-adjusted analysis demonstrates the safety of outpatient shoulder arthroplasty. J Isakos. 2022;7(2):51-5.
  201. Tumin D, Walia H, Raman VT, et al. Acute care revisits after adenotonsillectomy in a pediatric Medicaid population in Ohio. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;94:17-22.
  202. Uy M, Millan B, Jones C, et al. Successful Same-Day Discharge for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urol Pract. 2022;9(4):294-305.
  203. Valkering KP, van Bergen CJ, Buijze GA, et al. Pain experience and functional outcome of inpatient versus outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, an equivalence randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. Knee. 2015;22(2):111-6.
  204. Vanetta C, Dreifuss NH, Angeramo CA, et al. Outcomes of same-day discharge sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2023;19(3):238-49.
  205. Vaughan J, Gurusamy KS, Davidson BR. Day-surgery versus overnight stay surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(7):CD006798.
  206. Villavicencio AT, Nelson EL, Mason A, et al. Preliminary results on feasibility of outpatient instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(6):298-304.
  207. Vuong B, Dusendang JR, Chang SB, et al. Outpatient Mastectomy: Factors Influencing Patient Selection and Predictors of Return to Care. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(1):35-44.
  208. Wang T, Yang SD, Huang WZ, et al. Factors predicting venous thromboembolism after spine surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(52):e5776.
  209. Ward A, Roberts S, Harvey N, et al. Implementation of total laparoscopic hysterectomy as day case surgery. BMJ open qual. 2023;12(1):03.
  210. Weisbrod LJ, Staple BL, Westmark DM, et al. Safety of Outpatient Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses. Int J Spine Surg. 2024;19:19.
  211. Wiebe J, Singh NP, Dawson S, et al. Same day discharge following mastectomy and immediate tissue expander reconstruction: The effect of patient expectations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024;93:51-4.
  212. Willenbring TJ, DeVos MJ, Kozemchak AM, et al. Is outpatient shoulder arthroplasty safe in patients aged >=65 years? A comparison of readmissions and complications in inpatient and outpatient settings. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(10):2306-11.
  213. Wohns R. Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty. Surg Neurol Int. 2010;1:77.
  214. Wright B, Jung HY, Feng Z, et al. Trends in observation care among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at critical access hospitals, 2007-2009. J Rural Health. 2013;29 Suppl 1(0 1):s1-6.
  215. Xing D, Ma JX, Ma XL, et al. A methodological, systematic review of evidence-based independent risk factors for surgical site infections after spinal surgery. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(3):605-15.
  216. Yang MMH, Hartley RL, Leung AA, et al. Preoperative predictors of poor acute postoperative pain control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e025091.
  217. Yen D, Albargi A. Results and limitations of outpatient and overnight stay laminectomies for lumbar spinal stenosis. Can J Surg. 2017;60(5):329-34.
  218. Yerneni K, Burke JF, Chunduru P, et al. Safety of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Neurosurgery. 2019;23:23.
  219. Yu X, Jiang J, Shang H, et al. Effect of a risk-stratified intervention strategy on surgical complications: experience from a multicentre prospective study in China. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e025401.
  220. Zhu JW, Wang TF, Chen DS, et al. Safety evaluation of outpatient vs inpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(8):3615-24.

Appendix

ASA Physical Status Classification System

Classification Definition Adult examples, including, but not limited to:
ASA I A normal healthy patient Healthy, non-smoking, no or minimal alcohol use
ASA II A patient with mild systemic disease Mild diseases only without substantive functional limitations. Current smoker, social alcohol drinker, pregnancy, obesity (30 < BMI < 40), well-controlled DM/HTN, mild lung disease
ASA III A patient with severe systemic disease Substantive functional limitations; One or more moderate to severe diseases. Poorly controlled DM or HTN, COPD, morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40), active hepatitis, alcohol dependence or abuse, implanted pacemaker, moderate reduction of ejection fraction, ESRD undergoing regularly scheduled dialysis, premature infant PCA < 60 weeks, history (> 3 months) of MI, CVA, TIA, or CAD/stents.
ASA IV A patient with severe systemic disease that is a constant threat to life Recent (< 3 months) MI, CVA, TIA, or CAD/stents, ongoing cardiac ischemia or severe valve dysfunction, severe reduction of ejection fraction, sepsis, DIC, ARD or ESRD not undergoing regularly scheduled dialysis
ASA V A moribund patient who is not expected to survive without the operation Ruptured abdominal/thoracic aneurysm, massive trauma, intracranial bleed with mass effect, ischemic bowel in the face of significant cardiac pathology or multiple organ/system dysfunction
ASA VI A declared brain-dead patient whose organs are being removed for donor purposes –

*The addition of “E” denotes Emergency surgery: (An emergency is defined as existing when delay in treatment of the patient would lead to a significant increase in the threat to life or body part)

Source: 2014 ASA Physical Status Classification System (Amended December 13, 2020) available at the American Society of Anesthesiologists website; Accessed March 3, 2022.

Codes

The following code list is not meant to be all-inclusive. Authorization requirements will vary by health plan. Please consult the applicable health plan for guidance on specific procedure codes.

Specific CPT codes for services should be used when available. Nonspecific or not otherwise classified codes may be subject to additional documentation requirements and review.

CPT/HCPCS

CPT® (Current Procedural Terminology) is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association (AMA). CPT® five-digit codes, nomenclature and other data are copyright by the American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. AMA does not directly or indirectly practice medicine or dispense medical services. AMA assumes no liability for the data contained herein or not contained herein.

See link below for CPT code list.

https://providers.carelonmedicalbenefitsmanagement.com/surgicalprocedures/resources/

ICD-10 Diagnosis

Refer to the ICD-10 CM manual

History

Status Review Date Effective Date Action
Revised 04/21/2025 11/15/2025 Independent Multispecialty Physician Panel (IMPP) review. Level of Care criteria and code list expanded beyond its prior musculoskeletal scope to include additional surgical procedures. Guideline renamed to reflect this change in scope. Added references.
Reaffirmed 04/15/2024 Unchanged IMPP review. Guideline reaffirmed. Removed “and Procedures” from the title. Added references.
Updated n/a 01/01/2024 Annual CPT code update. Description changes for 28292, 28295, 28296, 28297, 28298, 28299. Added guidance for correct coding to code section.
Revised 04/12/2023 11/05/2023 for commercial, Medicare and Medicaid except IA and LA; 04/14/2024 for IA Medicaid IMPP review. Added Total or partial primary shoulder arthroplasty for Ambulatory surgery center with 23-hour observation. Added Shoulder arthroplasty CPT codes: 23470 and 23472. Updated references. Added required language to General Clinical Guideline per new Medicare regulations.
Updated – 01/01/2023 2023 Annual CPT code update: description change for 22633.
Updated – 01/01/2022 2022 Annual CPT code update: description changes for 22633, 22634, 63048. Updated access date to ASA physical status chart.
Reaffirmed 11/11/2021 Unchanged IMPP review. Guideline reaffirmed.
Updated – 01/01/2021 2021 Annual CPT code update: description changes for 23466, 29822, 29823.
Revised 02/03/2020 11/01/2020 IMPP review. Added clarifications for thoracic and sacral spine. Added CPT codes for joint surgery: 27702, 27703, 27704, 27870, 28110, 28285, 28286, 28289, 28291, 28292, 28295, 28296, 28297, 28298, 28299, 28306, 28307, 28308, 28310, 28312, 28315, 28750, 29871, 29892. Added CPT codes for spine surgery: 22633, 22634, 63265, 63267.
Revised 07/11/2018 03/09/2019 IMPP review. Added the General Clinical Guideline.
Revised 07/11/2018 01/28/2019 IMPP review. Added observation surgical setting.
Created 12/12/2017 03/01/2018 IMPP review. Original effective date.

Recently Viewed