Admission after sleep surgery is unnecessary in patients without cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: Evidence is lacking to guide whether patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) require mandatory postoperative monitoring when undergoing multilevel sleep surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the respiratory complication rate following OSA surgery and identify which patients benefit from monitoring after surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted. METHODS: Fifty patients (age 45.4 ± 12.4; male 39, female 11), with sleep study-proven OSA (apnoea/hypopnoea index [AHI] 24.3 ± 22.2) underwent multilevel sleep surgery. All patients had the St. Joseph's OSA risk score calculated preoperatively and then again within the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The patients were then stratified into two categories: safe for same-day discharge and requiring admission for overnight O2 saturation monitoring. Groups were compared across age, sex, AHI, body mass index, mean O2 saturation, minimum O2 saturation, length of time in PACU, narcotic use, smoking, surgery type, and other comorbidities. The St. Joseph's OSA Risk Tool was applied. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of patients met criteria for same-day discharge, and 22% required admission. For the discharged patients, we had a 0.0% readmission or complication rate for OSA-specific reasons. For the admitted patients, we had no OSA-specific complications while admitted to hospital. No variables consistently predicted complications or need for admission. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of respiratory events requiring intervention following multilevel sleep surgery is very low. Most patients with OSA undergoing surgery can be safely discharged home without any subsequent respiratory complications. In addition, those patients admitted for monitoring after surgery do not benefit from their admission. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2B.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".