Results and limitations of outpatient and overnight stay laminectomies for lumbar spinal stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: At our centre, laminectomies have been traditionally performed as inpatient surgery. A gradual change in practice occurred between 2010 and 2013 to try to do these procedures as outpatient or overnight stay surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients having laminectomies over 2 18-month periods: before the change in practice and after full implementation of the outpatient/overnight stay protocol. We collected information on patient characteristics (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification, home address, number of laminectomy levels, estimated blood loss) and patient outcome (complications, hospital length of stay, 30-day readmissions). RESULTS: We found no significant difference in age, sex, ASA classification, number of laminectomy levels, or estimated blood loss between the 2 cohorts. There was a change in the number of outpatient (from 0 to 25) and overnight stay laminectomies (from 0 to 13). There was an increase in total (inpatient, overnight stay and outpatient) laminectomies from 41 to 82, and an increase in patients from out of our region from 15% to 32%. There was 1 readmission within 30 days that occurred in the first cohort. CONCLUSION: We found that outpatient and overnight stay laminectomies can be done safely, with no patients requiring postoperative admission to hospital or readmissions within 30 days. They can be done in patients from out of town who need to travel home postoperatively. It is possible to safely reduce the level of resources used for spine surgery by carrying out laminectomies as outpatient or overnight stay surgery in select patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".