MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409970287 · doi:10.1177/22925503251334392

Comparing Complication Rates for Plastic Surgery Minor Procedure in Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Premises Clinics: A One Year Retrospective Review of 2739 Cases During COVID19 Pandemic

2025· article· en· W4409970287 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia Pei, Daniel Olteanu, Daud Manzar, Nasimul Huq

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of NiagaraMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComplicationSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyGeneral surgeryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study compares complication rates for minor reconstructive procedures done under local anesthesia in a hospital setting versus out-of-hospital premises (OHP) setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. If it could be shown that minor plastic surgeries have similar, if not reduced, complication types and frequencies, this would provide a strong rationale for more procedures to be delegated to non-hospital office settings. Not only would complication rates be lower for patients, resulting in improved quality of life and health outcomes, but there would be increased efficiency for minor plastic surgery procedures, improved patient wait times, and reduced burden on hospital resources to allow for accommodation of more complex and major procedures that cannot be performed elsewhere. Methods: This is a retrospective medical record review of patients who underwent minor plastic surgery procedures at a community hospital and OHP settings. All procedures were performed by the same plastic surgeon. Minor plastic procedures were defined as day procedures performed with only local anesthesia. Procedures were completed with field sterility (eg, use of drapes and sterile gloves) but not room sterility. A total of 2739 charts (537 hospital charts and 2202 clinic charts) from January 2022 to December 2022, were reviewed with annotation of patient demographics, procedure type, procedure site, follow-up dates, complications, and complication type, if any. Statistical analysis involving chi-squared tests was performed on anonymized data to primarily compare complication rates between the hospital and the outpatient clinic setting, as well as secondary comparisons of subgroups such as patients with diabetes and patients using blood thinners. Results: There was a 3.5% complication rate for the minor procedures in the hospital compared to 1.2% in OHP setting which was a statistically significant finding. Conclusion: There were fewer complications for patients undergoing minor reconstructive procedures in an outpatient clinic setting versus in-hospital, indicating the potential for delegation of minor surgeries to OHP clinics and ambulatory surgery centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207