Minor surgery procedures: A retrospective review and prospective survey in a pediatric population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated minor surgery procedures undertaken by a single plastic surgeon at BC Children's Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia) for patient and physician satisfaction, parent impressions, psychological concerns and complications. METHODS: Data were collected from a retrospective chart review and a prospective patient survey. Eligible subjects for the retrospective study included all pediatric patients undergoing minor surgery between May 2011 and April 2013. Parameters of interest included patient demographics, minor surgery specifics, complications and outcomes. Eligible subjects for the prospective patient survey included consecutive patients undergoing minor surgery between June 2013 and August 2013, as well as their parents. RESULTS: A total of 219 procedures were included in the retrospective review. The mean age of subjects was 13.1 years (range two weeks to 18 years). The median length of follow-up was 46 days (range four to 606 days). There were no major complications; however, 45 minor complications in 36 patients were found. Complications included crusting (4.6%), delayed wound healing (3.2%), hypersensitivity (2.3%), scar hypertrophy (1.8%), infection (0.9%) and other (7.8%). Outcomes were categorized as one of four outcomes: both satisfied (89.9%); patient satisfied but physician unsatisfied (0.8%); patient unsatisfied and physician satisfied (3.1%); and both unsatisfied (6.2%). In the prospective study, 32 subjects consented to participate in the survey. Of these subjects, 10 children and 12 parents responded to the questionnaires. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated that their goals were accomplished by their procedure and that they would be willing to undergo minor surgery again. CONCLUSION: Minor surgery is possible and practical in pediatric plastic surgery clinics, with few complications and high patient and surgeon satisfaction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".