Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:17177903rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0030705lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0034991lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0543467lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0460004lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1274040lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1280500lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0806106lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:issue5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:dateCreated2006-12-20lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:abstractTextThe objective of this study was to determine the significance of in-hospital rehabilitation facility vs. distant rehabilitation facilities in the outcomes and complications of post-operative head and neck surgical patients. Retrospective review of head and neck surgical patients was conducted over a 5-year period at a tertiary care medical centre. Fifty patients met criteria for this study (35 males, 15 females). Forty-two patients had a primary squamous cell carcinoma and eight patients had other primary malignancies of the head and neck. Thirty-two patients were placed in an in-hospital rehabilitation facility and 18 patients were placed in distant rehabilitation facilities (average distance 40.9 miles). Seventeen patients (34%) had complications including infection/drainage (seven patients), fistula (six patients), pneumonia (two patients), wound dehiscence (two patients) and other minor complications. The difference complication rate among the two groups was not statistically significant (37.5% in-hospital rehabilitation, 27.8% distant rehabilitation; P=0.496). The rate of hospital re-admission was not statistically significant (25% in-hospital rehabilitation patients, 16.7% distant rehabilitation patients; P=0.505). The average length of stay of patients without complications was 18.5 days (SD=5.8) for in-hospital rehabilitation and 12.9 days (SD=17) for distant rehabilitation. This difference was not statistically significant (P=0.346). In summary, one-third of post-operative head and neck surgical patients developed complications while in a rehabilitation facility. The length of stay, hospital re-admission rate and frequency of complications does not correlate with the proximity of the rehabilitation facility to the hospital where the patients received their surgery.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:citationSubsetNlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:monthDeclld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:issn0961-5423lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ShahR KRKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RebeizE EEElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BhatiaNNlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:McQuillanRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AnninoD JDJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorpubmed-author:VillacortaMMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:volume15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:pagination458-62lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:17177903...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:year2006lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:articleTitleEffect of rehabilitation facility location on outcomes in head and neck surgical patients.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:affiliationTufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. nitin.bhatia@tufts.edulld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:17177903pubmed:publicationTypeEvaluation Studieslld:pubmed