William G. Eversman

Purpose Identify an algorithm using clinical and ultrasound (US) parameters with high diagnostic performance for acute cholecystitis. Methods Consecutive emergency department (ED) patients from 4/1/2019 to 12/31/2019 were retrospectively reviewed to record non-US parameters and make US observations. Outcomes were categorized as either: (1) acute cholecystitis; or (2) negative acute cholecystitis. Pivot tables identified parameter combinations either not found with acute cholecystitis or with predictive value for acute cholecystitis to establish the algorithm. US Division radiologists finalized an US report prior to ED disposition without use of the algorithm. Radiologist impression and algorithm prediction for acute cholecystitis were categorized as either (1) acute cholecystitis; (2) negative acute cholecystitis; or (3) inconclusive. Results Three hundred and sixty-six studies on 357 patients (mean age, 51 yrs ± 20 yrs; 215 women) met the inclusion criteria. 10.9% (40/366) of US studies had acute cholecystitis, 12.6% (46/366) had pathologically identified chronic cholecystitis without acute cholecystitis, and 76.5% (280/366) were negative acute cholecystitis. Algorithm compared to radiologist diagnostic performance was as follows: (1) sensitivity: 90.0% vs. 55.0%, p < 0.001; (2) augmented sensitivity (defined as when inconclusive categorization is considered consistent with acute cholecystitis): 100% vs. 85.0%, p < 0.001; (3) specificity: 93.6% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.50; (4) diagnostic rate (opposite of inconclusive rate): 96.4% vs. 93.2%, p = 0.04; (5) adverse outcome rate: 0.0% vs. 1.6%, p undefined. Conclusion For acute cholecystitis, an algorithm using non-binary ultrasound and clinical assessments had higher sensitivity, higher diagnostic rate, and fewer adverse outcomes, than subspecialty radiologist impressions. Graphical abstract

Introduction: This study aims to describe robot assisted surgery of the inferior vena cava (IVC) by assessing techniques utilized, perioperative outcomes, complications, and long-term patency of the IVC. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on all robotic surgeries involving dissection and repair of the IVC at our institution. Patient characteristics, operative reports, and follow-up visits were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative imaging was independently reviewed by a single radiologist to determine changes in IVC diameter. Complications were analyzed according to early (30 days). Results: Thirty-four patients underwent robot assisted surgery of the vena cava from 2008 to 2018. Twenty-six cases were performed for urologic malignancy, four were performed for IVC filter explantation, and four renal vein transpositions were performed for nutcracker syndrome. Twenty-four of the 26 patients with urologic malignancy underwent radical nephrectomy with IVC tumor thrombectomy. Three cases were converted to open. Median length of stay was two nights, and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 375 mL. There were five complications, ranging from Clavien-Dindo grade II–IIIa, four of which were early complications. No patients required return to the operating room, and there were no perioperative mortalities. IVC diameter was reduced by 41% on axial diameter, with no patients experiencing compromised venous return. Conclusion: Robot assisted surgery offers the advantage of minimally invasive surgery with the ability to apply open surgical principles. In our series, an experienced multidisciplinary team approach yielded low EBL, short length of stay, and low complication rates.