Cost-effectiveness of simultaneous versus sequential surgery in head and neck reconstruction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether simultaneous (ablation and reconstruction overlaps by two teams) head and neck reconstruction is cost effective compared to sequentially (ablation followed by reconstruction) performed surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Case-controlled study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS: Oncology patients undergoing free flap reconstruction of the head and neck. METHODS: A match paired comparison study was performed with a retrospective chart review examining the total time of surgery for sequential and simultaneous surgery. Nine patients were selected for both the sequential and simultaneous groups. Sequential head and neck reconstruction patients were pair matched with patients who had undergone similar oncologic ablative or reconstructive procedures performed in a simultaneous fashion. A detailed cost analysis using the microcosting method was then undertaken looking at the direct costs of the surgeons, anesthesiologist, operating room, and nursing. RESULTS: On average, simultaneous surgery required 3 hours 15 minutes less operating time, leading to a cost savings of approximately $1200/case when compared to sequential surgery. This represents approximately a 15% reduction in the cost of the entire operation. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous head and neck reconstruction is more cost effective when compared to sequential 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 | 0.001 | 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".