P-220THORACOSCOPIC OUTPATIENT WEDGE LUNG RESECTION: IS IT A SAFE AND EFFECTIVE PROCEDURE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outpatient surgical procedure has become a common practice in general surgery. However, only sporadic studies have been reported on thoracic surgery and almost exclusively for conditions that do not require a lung resection. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of thoracoscopic outpatient-wedge resections using a “real-time” air leak digital device. Data were collected prospectively on all patients undergoing thoracoscopic outpatient-wedge resections from November 2010 to August 2012. All procedures were performed under general anaesthesia with a double-lumen endotracheal tube. Three port sites were used and one or two stapled wedge resections were performed without any suture reinforcement. A chest drain in continuous aspiration (-20 cm/H2O) was positioned as needed. Chest tubes were removed when no air leak (0 ml/min) or bleeding (<200 ml) were detected by digital device one hour after surgery. The distribution of study subjects according to sex, smoking habit, indication to resection, number of wedge, histological findings and the readmission or non-readmission into hospital was compared by the exact Fisher's test. A logistic regression was fitted to estimate the odds ratio for readmission in hospital. The significance limit was set at P < 0.05. Thirty-seven patients with a mean age of 59 (±11.88) underwent outpatient thoracoscopy during the study period. The thoracoscopic outpatient-wedge resections were performed in 33 cases (3 interstitial and 30 nodular disease). In 11 of these (33.3%) two parenchymal resections were performed. The overall readmission rate was 9.1% (3/33). When air-flow detected before drainage removal was 0 ml/min the presence of two pulmonary resections, malignant histology, interstitial disease or smoke history seem to not imply a significant readmission rate. When air-flow detected by digital device before drainage removal is 0 ml/min the thoracoscopic outpatient-wedge resection seems to be a safe and effective procedure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".