Outpatient vs inpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to investigate whether outpatient total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) could be performed as a routine without compromising patient satisfaction. The main outcomes were patient satisfaction with length of hospital stay, quality of life, complications and readmissions, and time to return to work. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A non-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial (Canadian Task Force classification I) performed in a single-center teaching hospital in Denmark. A total of 204 women scheduled for TLH on benign indication were randomized to same-day discharge or overnight stay after TLH. Visual analogue scales (VAS), a validated questionnaire EQ-5D, and a diary were filled in pre- and postoperatively. VAS scores on satisfaction with length of hospital stay and pain were administered taken with the EQ-5D and the diary during a follow up over 4 weeks. Student's t test, Chi-square and non-parametric statistics were used for analysis. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02933047. RESULTS: A total of 204 women gave informed consent and 203 underwent surgery (101 outpatient and 102 inpatient women). Complete data were available for 76 women in the outpatient group and 86 women in the inpatient group. There were no differences in baseline characteristics. No group differences were found in satisfaction with length of hospital stay (P = 0.35). The EQ-5D revealed no difference in patient satisfaction. However, one-third in the outpatient group chose overnight stay without medical indication. The groups were comparable in clinical outcomes. Sick leave was longer in the outpatient group regardless of the actual treatment (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Routine outpatient TLH implies that one-third of the patients stay overnight if this option is available without medical indication. Within this context the procedure can be performed with high patient satisfaction, but may lengthen the time to return to work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".