Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of tissue sealant in facilitating day surgery parotidectomy without the use of surgical drains and to consider the potential economic benefit using this technique. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study of 21 patients undergoing parotidectomy for nonmalignant disease in a university hospital. Surgery as a day procedure without the use of surgical drains was planned. The costs associated with parotidectomy, including the use of tissue sealant and its delivery system, versus in-patient admission with a drain were calculated and compared. METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Parotidectomy was undertaken by one surgeon. Prior to wound closure, the skin flap and wound bed were approximated using Tisseel tissue sealant (Baxter Corp., Mississauga, ON). Data regarding the costs of the tissue sealant, the delivery system, and hospital in-patient stay were obtained to enable an economic comparison. Patients were followed to assess surgical outcome and document any complications. RESULTS: There were no major surgical complications. One patient required admission for control of postoperative nausea. None of the patients felt that discharge had been premature. The estimated cost advantage of this technique applied to institutions in Canada was $1,775 per case. CONCLUSIONS: Parotidectomy can be undertaken safely in a day surgery setting without the need for surgical drains. The increased cost associated with the use of tissue sealant compared with surgical drains is greatly overshadowed by the economic advantage of undertaking day surgery. There is a significant potential cost saving to the health care system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".