Single-night stay for open radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an enhanced care pathway on length of stay (LOS) for open radical prostatectomy (RP) given that robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is not available to all patients in Canada. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all RPs performed. An enhanced care pathway was established for RPs in 2011. Patients were compared in the period before (2005-2010) and after (2011-2019) the introduction of the pathway. RESULTS: During the study period, 581 RPs were performed by a single surgeon with a median followup of 66.9 months (range 3-176). A total of 211 (36.3%) RPs were performed from 2005-2010, while 370 (63.9%) were performed from 2011-2019. The median age at RP was 65 years (range 44-81). Following the introduction of an enhanced care pathway, there were significant decreases in intraoperative blood loss (350 ml vs. 200 ml; p=0.0001) and the use of surgical drains (90% vs. 9.5%; p=0.0001). The median LOS over the whole study period was one day (range 1-7), which significantly decreased with the enhanced care pathway (3 vs. 1 day; p=0.0001). Since introducing the enhanced care pathway in 2011, 344 (93%) patients were discharged day 1 following surgery. There were no differences in post-discharge presentations to the emergency department (5.7% vs. 9%; p=0.15) or 30-day readmission rates (3.8% vs. 3.8%; p=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: A single-night stay for open RP is safe and achievable for most patients. A dedicated, multifaceted pathway is required to attain targets for a safe and timely discharge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".