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 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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".