Outpatient (same‐day discharge) versus inpatient parotidectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parotidectomy is often performed as an inpatient procedure largely due to drain insertion; however, outpatient parotidectomy has increasingly become an attractive alternative for its shorter hospital stays and greater efficiency in cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW: To assess the safety and feasibility of outpatient (or same-day discharge) parotidectomy compared with inpatient parotidectomy. TYPE OF REVIEW: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for articles published in English between 01/01/1990 and 05/10/2019. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment and Review Manager 5.3 for meta-analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative complications including bleeding/haematoma, surgical site infection, seroma and facial weakness. Secondary outcome was readmission rate. RESULTS: Out of 445 studies identified, 6 were selected for systematic review. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. A total of 3664 patients were included (1646 in the outpatient group and 2018 in the inpatient group). Comparing the outpatient with inpatient cohorts, there were lower complications in outpatient groups though not statistically significant for haematoma (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.11-1.92; P = .28), surgical site infection (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.46-1.69; P = .70), seroma (0.79; 95% CI = 0.21-3.03; P = .74), facial nerve weakness (OR 0.39; 95% CI = 0.14-1.08; P = .07) and hospital readmission (OR 0.58; 95% CI = 0.33-1.04; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient parotidectomy appears to be safe and compares favourably to inpatient procedure in postoperative complication and readmission rates.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".