No abstract

No abstract

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnosis and management of postoperative bile leaks, reporting typical diagnostic findings and available percutaneous techniques in association with other diagnostic and management methods. Methods Thirty-six patients (28 male) were treated for postoperative bile leaks. A biliary leak was clinically suspected in case of persistent leakage of bilious material from a surgical drain, or in the presence of non-specific symptoms such as abdominal pain, fever and anorexia, with or without laboratory alteration of liver enzymes. Radiological confirmation was mainly based on noninvasive methods such as ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. We assessed each treatment by evaluating multiple factors, including technical success (TS) and clinical effectiveness (CE), defined as primary or secondary. We also evaluated overall CE (OCE), defined as leak control with either single or multiple procedures. Results TS and OCE were achieved in all patients (36/36; 100%) with a grade A or B biliary leak. No grade C was observed. There were no major complications. Minor complications were observed in 7/36 (19.4%) patients. No procedure-related deaths occurred. Conclusions In our study, considering all percutaneous techniques, leak healing was achieved in all the patients with a grade A or B biliary leak. These procedures provide a less invasive approach and are increasingly recognized as having a significant role in the management of complications and should be considered as an integral component in the postoperative management of these patients.

Purpose The study’s aim is to analyse the diagnostic performance of chest radiography (CXR) in patients with suspected coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Methods We retrospectively considered 826 consecutive patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to our emergency department (ED) from February 21 to March 31, 2020, in a high disease prevalence setting. We enrolled patients who underwent CXR and rhino-oropharyngeal swab for real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR). CXRs were evaluated by an expert radiologist; a second independent analysis was performed by two residents in consensus. All readers, blinded to rRT-PCR results, classified CXRs positive/negative depending on presence/absence of typical findings of COVID-19, using rRT-PCR as reference standard. Results We finally analysed 680 patients (median age 58); 547 (80%) tested positive for COVID-19. The diagnostic performance of CXR, interpreted by the expert reader, was as follows: sensitivity (79.0%; 95% CI: 75.3–82.3), specificity (81.2%; 95% CI: 73.5–87.5), PPV (94.5%;95% CI: 92.0–96.4), NPV (48.4%; 95% CI: 41.7–55.2), and accuracy (79.3%; 95% CI: 76.0–82.2). For the residents: sensitivity (75.1%; 95% CI: 71.2–78.7), specificity (57.9%; 95% CI: 49.9–66.4), PPV (88.0%; 95% CI: 84.7–90.8), NPV (36.2%; 95% CI: 29.7–43.0), and accuracy (71.6%; 95% CI: 68.1–75.0). We found a significant difference between the reporting sensitivity (p = 0.013) and specificity (p < 0.0001) of expert radiologist vs residents. CXR sensitivity was higher in patients with symptom onset > 5 days before ED presentation compared to ≤ 5 days (84.4% vs 70.7%). Conclusions CXR showed a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 81% in diagnosing viral pneumonia in symptomatic patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19. Further studies in lower prevalence settings are needed.

No abstract