Outpatient versus Inpatient Parotidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parotidectomies are commonly performed procedures by head and neck surgeons. Although parotidectomies are historically inpatient procedures, recent observational evidence has highlighted the potential for parotidectomies to be performed on an outpatient basis. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare complications and unplanned health care utilization between patients undergoing outpatient versus inpatient parotidectomy. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: Studies comparing the outcomes of outpatient parotidectomy with those of inpatient parotidectomy were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Postoperative complications (hematoma, facial nerve dysfunction, seroma, fistulisation, Frey syndrome, and wound infection) and rates of 30-day readmission, reintervention, and emergency department presentation were compared. RESULTS: We screened 1018 nonduplicate articles to include 5 studies, all of which were retrospective cohort studies. There were fewer complications found in the outpatient group (relative risk = 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.93). Outpatient procedures were more commonly performed on patients who lived close to the hospital, had fewer comorbidities, and had less extensive planned surgery. CONCLUSION: Outpatient parotidectomy appears safe in select patients with outcomes comparable with inpatient surgery. However, evidence overall is of low quality, and further work is needed to delineate a satisfactory set of criteria for appropriate patient identification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".