Outpatient thyroidectomy: safety and patients' satisfaction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish whether outpatient thyroid surgery is safe. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort. SETTING: Two tertiary care centres. METHODS: Although there is currently a trend toward ambulatory surgery in many domains, thyroidectomy has traditionally remained an inpatient procedure. We present our 200-case experience of total and partial thyroidectomy in an outpatient setting. Consecutive patients were prospectively recruited between May 2009 and October 2010. Surgeries were performed by four surgeons. A postoperative parathyroid hormone (PTH) level was obtained in the recovery room and used to guide the prescription of calcium and calcitriol oral supplements according to our institutional protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative complications, admission and readmission rates, patients' satisfaction, and feeling of security on a 10-point scale. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients, for a total of 200 surgical procedures: 100 hemithyroidectomies, 34 completion hemithyroidectomies, and 66 total thyroidectomies (including 14 with central compartment dissection). Immediate admission was decided in 12% of cases due to peroperative findings (15 patients), anesthetic considerations (7 patients), bilateral vocal fold paralysis noted in the recovery room (1 patient), and surgery late in the afternoon (1 patient). Two patients were readmitted for surgical site infections and one due to hypocalcemia. Temporary symptomatic hypocalcemia or decreased PTH level occurred in 10% (20 patients). On average, patients' satisfaction and feeling of security reached 9.3 on a 10-point scale. CONCLUSION: Outpatient thyroid surgery is a safe and desirable option.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".