MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409115059 · doi:10.1093/asjof/ojaf020

Are Canadian Outpatient Ambulatory Surgery Centers Safe? An Assessment of 2596 Consecutive Aesthetic Surgery Patients

2025· article· en· W4409115059 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalia Ziolkowski, John Milkovich, Jamil Ahmad, Elizabeth Benakopoulos, Frank Lista, Ryan E Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatorySurgeryPacuRetrospective cohort studyOutpatient surgeryAdverse effectDemographicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) with same-day discharge criteria are the most common setting for aesthetic surgery in Canada. However, to date, no study has reviewed the safety of outpatient aesthetic surgery performed in the Canadian ASC setting. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall safety profile of aesthetic surgery in ASCs, to determine how often in-hospital resources were utilized following outpatient aesthetic surgery, and to examine how predictor variables impact adverse outcomes in this setting. Methods A retrospective chart review of 2596 consecutive patients who underwent aesthetic surgery over a 40-month period at a single Canadian ASC was performed. Data extracted included demographics, operative details, and postoperative complications. Results A total of 2581 patients met inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (91.2%) with a mean age of 37.6 years (range, 18-85 years). Most patients had a BMI in the normal weight range (56.3%), and 70.0% were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I score. Patients predominantly underwent breast/chest surgery (60.3%) with a procedure duration under 2 h (59.2%). Mean postanesthesia care unit time was 109 min (range, 72-420 min). In total, 10 patients (0.4%) utilized hospital resources in the postoperative period, with 3 (0.1%) direct hospital transfers from the ASC. No patients underwent reoperation in the hospital setting. Overall, 67 (2.4%) patients experienced complications that were managed within the ASC setting. Combined procedures (P = .1367), lipoaspirate volume (P = .53) and procedure duration (P = .92) were not associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Conclusions Aesthetic surgery in the ASC setting is safe, with a low associated complication rate. Utilization of hospital resources in the postoperative period is rare. Level of Evidence: 4 (Risk)

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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAesthetic Surgery Journal Open ForumSame topicBody Image and Dysmorphia StudiesFrench-language works237,207