I must say that this post flabbergasted me. Not sure I can quite get my head around it yet. I imagine I would be in the category of ideal candidate for this trial but not sure I would have gone for it last April (if it had been offered at the time of my surgery, which it wasn't). And I had my brother who is a cardiac nurse staying with me in the hotel room across the parking lot! And I could walk without a cane the day after surgery (a little that is, and I shouldn't have been doing that).
Frankly I need to think about this a lot more before I weigh in. Obviously Dr. Gross knows more about this surgery than I do, but on the other hand, I don't think he's actually gone through it either. He hasn't, has he? I am pretty sure I would want to stay at least one overnight. I could have gotten away without the second, but I have no strong objection to staying two nights.
Even a casual reading of my posts reveal that I am as big a fan of Dr. Gross as anyone on this website. That being said, he is quite upfront about his dissatisfaction with the third-party payment nature of our health care system, and his intent to not accept insurance (some types, all? I forget) once his practice no longer needs to. There was also some recent speculation on this website that perhaps that day is approaching. I imagine out-patient surgery would bring down the cost to someone not using insurance significantly, perhaps far enough that Dr. Gross could make the move to no longer accepting some or all insurance.
That being said I am sure Dr. Gross would not be doing this if it wasn't medically supported enough to at least make a trial (which is all that this appears to be). He is clearly interested in moving the practice of medicine forward, and he is very data oriented. If the trial supports continuing out-patient surgery, great. If it shows that tweaks are needed, great. If it is not a success, so be it.
I am of course just speculating about the insurance thing, but thought I would throw that out there for discussion.
Mike