MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385074037 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.8324

Performing urological inpatient procedures as same-day procedures during the COVID pandemic

2023· article· en· W4385074037 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicolas Siron, Anis Assad, Mona Ouirzanne, Marie-Lyssa Lafontaine, Kevin C. Zorn, Jean‐Baptiste Lattouf, Malek Meskawi, Emmanuelle Duceppe, Naeem Bhojani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous nephrolithotomyPandemicProstatectomyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)General surgeryPercutaneousEmergency medicineSurgeryProstateInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In line with Canadian provincial directives due to the COVID-19 pandemic, certain elective urologic surgical cases that are normally performed as inpatient procedures were performed as same-day discharge procedures to reduce hospitalization and the usage of scarce healthcare resources. Since the pandemic, we began performing laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP), robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL ) as outpatient surgeries. This was supported by recent evidence demonstrating the safety and feasibility of performing these minimally invasive surgeries as same-day procedures. As such, we sought to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety during the COVID-19 era at our institution for same-day discharge LEP, RARP, and PCNL procedures. METHODS: All patients operated for LEP, RARP, or PCNL between May 2020 and March 2022 at two academic institutions were included. Surgeries were classified as planned same-day discharge or inpatient surgery. Same-day discharge patients were compared to inpatients for each procedure type. This comparison assessed the occurrence of same-day failure, postoperative complications, and re-admission rates at 30 days. This study was approved by the scientific ethics committee of the Centre de Recherche de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM). RESULTS: A total of 413 subjects were included in this study. Among LEP patients (n=169), 104 (62%) were identified as same-day procedures and 65 (38%) were inpatient. Among RARP patients (n=194), 46 (24%) were identified as same-day procedures and 148 (76%) inpatient. Among PCNL patients (n=50), 38 (76%) were identified as same-day procedures and 12 (24%) were inpatient. Of the patients who underwent planned same-day LEP, RARP, and PCNL, 77.9%, 73.9%, and 71.1% were successfully discharged home, respectively. Patients who underwent LEP as inpatients had a higher incidence of overall postoperative complications compared to same-day LEP (23.1% vs. 8.7%, p=0.017). The rates of 30-day emergency department (ED ) visits and hospital re-admission were similar between inpatient and same-day LEP (9.2% vs. 3.8%, p=0.27; and 4.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.32, respectively). Inpatient RARP, however, was associated with more 30-day ED visits compared to same-day procedures (17.4% vs. 4.1%, p<0.01). No statistically significant differences were found for postoperative complications (15.2% vs. 6.1%, p=0.097) and re-admission rates (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p=0.51). There were no significant differences on overall postoperative complications, 30-day ED visits, and re-admission rates in inpatient vs. same-day PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that same-day discharge for LEP, RARP, and PCNL is safe and feasible in select patients, with an acceptable complication rate. These results should be validated in a larger, prospective clinical trial comparing same-day and inpatient procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207