Parotid Surgery in an Outpatient Setting: The Vancouver Hospital Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study was to review our experience with parotid surgery in an outpatient setting. Particular attention was given to examining the demographics of the population suitable for this approach as well as to evaluating complication and readmission rates. Waiting times for surgery were reviewed. Our experience is then compared with that of other researchers reported in the literature. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 76 patients undergoing parotid surgery by a single surgeon in a free-standing surgical centre associated with Vancouver General Hospital, a tertiary teaching facility, was undertaken for the following: age, gender, American Association of Anesthesiology classification, time between initial visit and surgery, type of procedure, pathology, operative and recovery times and rates of complications, emergency department visitation, and readmission. RESULTS: Thirty-seven males and 39 females with a mean age of 44.8 +/- 16.2 years were reviewed. Mean operative and recovery times were 109.8 +/- 20 and 268.6 +/- 58 minutes, respectively. The minor complication rate was 6.6%. One patient (1.3%) required readmission and two others (2.6%) visited the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Parotid surgery is possible on an outpatient basis, given appropriate patient selection. Our rates of complications, emergency department visitation, and hospital admission compare favourably with those reported in the literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".