Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy should be the standard of care for uncomplicated appendicitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2012, a protocol for routine outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis was published reflecting high success, low morbidity, and significant cost savings. Despite this, national data reflect that the majority of laparoscopic appendectomies are performed with overnight admission. This study updates our experience with outpatient appendectomy since our initial report, confirming the efficacy of this approach. METHODS: In July 2010, a prospective protocol for outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy was adopted at our institution. Patients were dismissed from the postanesthesia recovery room or day surgery if they met predefined criteria for dismissal. Patients admitted to a hospital room as either full admission or observation status were considered failures of outpatient management. An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis from July 2010 through December 2012 was performed to analyze success of outpatient management, postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as readmission rates. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis during this time frame. There were 166 men and 179 women, with a mean age of 35 years. Three hundred five patients were managed as outpatients, with a success rate of 88%. Forty patients (12%) were admitted for preexisting comorbidities (15 patients), postoperative morbidity (6 patients), or lack of transportation or home support (19 patients). Twenty-three patients (6.6%) experienced postoperative morbidity. There were no mortalities. Four patients (1%) were readmitted for transient fever, nausea/vomiting, partial small bowel obstruction, and deep venous thrombosis. CONCLUSION: Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed with a high rate of success, a low morbidity, and a low readmission rate. This study reaffirms our original pilot study and should serve as the basis for a change in the standard of care for appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level V.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".