Abdominoplasty: A Comparison of Outpatient and Inpatient Procedures Shows That It Is a Safe and Effective Procedure for Outpatients in an Office-Based Surgery Clinic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures. In our practice, it has recently shifted toward outpatient care as the standard. In this study, the authors investigated the difference in short-term complications in outpatient and inpatient procedures in an office-based surgery clinic. METHODS: A total of 69 consecutive abdominoplasty patients from a plastic surgeon's office-based surgery clinic were reviewed retrospectively. Of these, there were 37 inpatients (mean age at time of operation, 41.2 years; range, 26 to 54 years) and 32 outpatients (mean age at time of operation, 37.5 years; range, 21 to 58 years). Each patient was reviewed for short-term complications, which included wound infection, wound dehiscence, seroma, and/or hematoma. Complications were correlated to inpatient and outpatient groups. RESULTS: Four inpatients (10.8 percent) and one outpatient (3.1 percent) had wound infections, whereas two inpatients (5.4 percent) and two outpatients (6.2 percent) had wound dehiscence/marginal necrosis (a small area of surgical wound opening). The most common perioperative complication was seroma formation, which was seen in seven inpatients (18.9 percent) and eight outpatients (25.0 percent). The overall complication rate in this study was 30.4 percent (29.7 percent in inpatients and 31.2 percent in outpatients). There was no correlation between short-term complications and inpatient/outpatient status. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that abdominoplasties can be safely and effectively performed in an outpatient surgery clinic.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it