Outpatient brain tumor craniotomy under general anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Outpatient craniotomy has many advantages to the psychological and physical well-being of patients, as well as benefits to the health care system. Its efficacy and safety have been well demonstrated, but barriers to its widespread adoption remain. Among the challenges is a perception that its application is limited to cases performed under conscious sedation, which is not always feasible given certain patient or surgeon factors. The object of this study was to characterize the rate of patient discharge from the day surgery unit (DSU) following craniotomy for tumor resection in a patient under general anesthesia. The authors identify postoperative complications and discuss appropriate patient selection for day surgery craniotomy. METHODS Patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial tumors between January 2010 and June 2014 were prospectively considered for outpatient management. Authors of the present study performed a retrospective chart review of these patients, analyzing cases by intention to treat. RESULTS Of 318 craniotomies undertaken in the study period, 141 were performed with the patient under general anesthesia. The day surgery protocol was initiated in 44 cases and completed in 38 (86%). Five patients required admission from the DSU, and 1 was discharged but admitted within the 1st postoperative day. In-hospital medical complications were fewer in the outpatient group, and no patients experienced an adverse outcome due to early discharge. CONCLUSIONS Close clinical and imaging surveillance in the early postoperative period allows for safe discharge of patients following craniotomy for tumor resection performed under general anesthesia. Therefore, general anesthesia does not preclude the application of outpatient craniotomy.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".