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
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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".