Selection of Obese Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of obesity has increased over the past 2 decades. In recent years, several studies have assessed perioperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. However, this evidence has not been reviewed and evaluated systematically. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies published between 1948 and May 2012, assessing perioperative outcome in adult obese patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. All studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported perioperative complications including unplanned hospital admission and readmission. RESULTS: A literature search revealed 23 studies (13 prospective and 10 retrospective), and 1 systematic review assessing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. A total of 106,119 patients were included in the analysis with 62,476 patients included in the prospective trials and 43,643 patients included in the retrospective trials (not including the systematic review of laparoscopic bariatric surgery). Of these, 39,548 patients underwent bariatric surgery. The super obese (body mass index [BMI] >50 kg/m) appear to be at higher risk of complications. Patients undergoing nonbariatric surgery had a lower degree of obesity (BMI approximately 30 kg/m). Patients undergoing bariatric surgery were morbidly obese (BMI >40 kg/m), which is associated with a higher comorbidity burden. However, the lack of increase in unanticipated admission rate in this patient population may be related to thorough preoperative assessment and avoidance of patients with comorbid conditions. DISCUSSION: The literature lacks adequate information to make strong recommendations regarding appropriate selection of the obese patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery. The literature does indicate that the super obese (BMI >50 kg/ m) do present an increased risk for perioperative complications, while patient with lower BMIs do not seem to present any increased risk as long as any comorbidities are minimal or optimized before surgery. This review also identifies knowledge gaps and recommends future research required to guide optimal selection of obese patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".