Outpatient Lumbar Microdiscectomy: A Prospective Study in 122 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outpatient surgery saves the risk of nosocomial complications and health care dollars. Patients undergoing lumbar microsurgical discectomy are excellent candidates for outpatient surgery. The object of this study was to examine the feasibility of performing lumbar microdiscectomy on an outpatient protocol and to examine the potential savings associated with such a protocol. METHODS: From February 1997 to September, 2001, 122 consecutive patients of the senior author were entered into a protocol of outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy. Only elective cases were considered for this study. Patients were excluded if they had significant co-morbidities, lived a significant distance out of town, or if their surgery was scheduled too late in the day. Success was defined as discharge home from the day-surgery unit approximately four hours after surgery. RESULTS: During the study period, 150 elective lumbar microdiscectomies were performed. Twenty-four patients were excluded based on the above criteria and four patients requested not to participate in the study. Of the remaining 122, 116 successfully completed the protocol (95.1%). Six patients were admitted from the day surgery unit; two patients with dural tears and four patients with anaesthetic side-effects. No patient was readmitted to hospital after discharge and no complications of early discharge were observed. There was a total reduction in hospitalization of 1.2 nights per elective procedure considering the 150 patients, when compared with the hospitalization times prior to outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar microdiscectomy can be performed safely as an outpatient procedure, resulting in a substantial reduction in hospitalization times.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".