No abstract

It is difficult to differentiate between non-complicated acute cholecystitis (NCAC) and complicated acute cholecystitis (CAC) preoperatively, which are two separate pathologies with different management. The aim of this study was to create an algorithm that distinguishes between CAC and NCAC using the decision tree method, which includes simple examinations. In this retrospective study, the patients were divided into 2 groups: CAC (149 patients) and NCAC (885 patients). Parameters such as patient demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Tokyo grade, comorbidity findings, white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, albumin level, CRP/albumin ratio (CAR), and gallbladder wall thickness (GBWT) were evaluated. In this algorithm, the CRP value became a very important parameter in the distinction between NCAC and CAC. Age was an important predictive factor in patients with CRP levels >57 mg/L, and the critical value for age was 42. After the age factor, the important parameters in the decision tree were WBC and GBWT. In patients with a CRP value of ≤57 mg/L, GBWT is decisive and the critical value is 4.85 mm. Age, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and WBC count were among the other important factors after GBWT. Sex, ASA score, Tokyo grade, comorbidity, CAR, and albumin value did not have an effect on the distinction between NCAC and CAC. In statistical analysis, significant differences were found groups in terms of gender (34.8% vs 51.7% male), ASA score ( P < .001), Tokyo grade ( P < .001), comorbidity ( P < .001), albumin (4 vs 3.4 g/dL), and CAR (2.4 vs 38.4). By means of this algorithm, which includes low-cost examinations, NCAC and CAC distinction can be made easily and quickly within limited possibilities. Preoperative prediction of pathologies that are difficult to manage, such as CAC, can minimize patient morbidity and mortality.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: The BI-RADS classification system and the Gail Model are the scoring systems that contribute to the diagnosis of breast cancer. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of Gail Model to the diagnosis of breast lesions that were radiologically categorized as BI-RADS 4A. Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the medical records of 320 patients between January 2011 and December 2020 whose lesions had been categorized as BI-RADS 4A. Radiological parameters of breast lesions and clinical parameters according to the Gail Model were collected. The relationship between malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions and radiological and clinical parameters was evaluated. In addition, the effect of the Gail Model on diagnosis in malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions was evaluated. Results: Among radiological features, there were significant differences between lesion size, contour, microcalcification content, echogenicity, and presence of ectasia with respect to the pathological diagnosis (p< 0.05). No significant difference was found between the lesions’ pathological diagnosis and the patients’ Gail score (p> 0.05). An analysis of the features of the Gail model revealed that there was no significant difference between the age of menarche, age at first live birth, presence of a first-degree relative with breast cancer, and a history of breast biopsy and the pathological diagnosis (p> 0.05). Conclusion: As a conclusion Gail Model does not contribute to the diagnosis of BC, especially in patients with BI-RADS 4A lesions.