Outcomes of an Overnight-Stay Unit for Urogynecologic Surgery: Feasibility and Risk Factors for Failure of Next-Day Discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing urogynecologic procedures with postoperative care in an overnight-stay unit at a tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 1644 women admitted to an overnight-stay unit at a Canadian tertiary care center after urogynecologic surgery between 2014 and 2018 was completed. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to identify risk factors for failed next-day discharge, defined as a delayed discharge of more than 24 hours, readmission within 30 days of surgery, or emergency room assessment within 7 days of surgery. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred seventy-eight patients (96%) were discharged within 24 hours of surgery. Mean patient age was 53.7 ± 15.1 years, with 21.2% 70 years or older. Surgical approaches included laparotomies (8.9%), major vaginal surgery (70.9%), and open retropubic procedures (2.1%). Hysterectomies were performed in 1120 patients (68.1%). One hundred one patients (6.1%) were assessed in the emergency department within 7 days of surgery, and 57 (3.5%) were readmitted to hospital within 30 days of their procedure. Multivariable regression identified the following as risk factors for failed next-day discharge: pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-8.06; P = 0.010), longer operating time (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79; P = 0.006, per 60 minutes), and intraoperative hemorrhagic complications (OR, 22.64; 95% CI, 5.83-88.00, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Admission to an overnight-stay unit with next-day discharge is feasible for most patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Factors associated with requiring a longer hospital stay, presentation to an emergency department, or readmission to hospital within 7 days include pulmonary disease, longer operating times, and intraoperative hemorrhagic complications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".