Evaluation of Breast Problems.

Breast disorders arise from a myriad of etiologies. They are frequent reasons for patient encounters in primary care and obstetric and gynecologic practices. The most common complaints include breast pain, nipple discharge and breast lumps or masses. Given widespread and well-known screening recommendations, breast cancers are regularly diagnosed during routine screening. Regardless of the presenting complaint, a patient's presentation, physical examination, and diagnostic imaging may require a unique framework for adequate and timely diagnosis for appropriate intervention and treatment. This manuscript aims to discuss and guide assessment to manage breast disorders.

Robotic versus laparoscopic elective colectomy for left side diverticulitis: a propensity score-matched analysis of the NSQIP database.

PURPOSE: Robotic surgery might have an advantage over conventional laparoscopy for colonic diverticulitis. We intend to compare both approaches in the elective management of left side diverticulitis. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database (2012-2014) was surveyed for patients undergoing elective left/sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, disease complexity, and intraoperative details were matched on propensity scores derived from logistic regression model. RESULTS: We identified 441 robotic and 6584 laparoscopic cases. Mean age was 56.8 years. Mean BMI was 29.5, and 46.5% of patients were males. Low preoperative albumin (< 3.5 mg/dl, 11.1% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.003), splenectomy (0.45% vs. 0.05%, p = 0.002), and enterotomy repair (1.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.029) were higher in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group. Hand assistance (35.8% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.003), splenic flexure takedown (41.5% vs. 49.2%, p = 0.002), and ureteric stent placement (18.6% vs. 23.5%, p = 0.017) were less common in the robotic group than the laparoscopic group. Case-matched analysis showed that robotic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay (3.89 ± 2.18 days vs. 4.75 ± 3.25 days, p < 0.001), lower conversion rate (7.5% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.001), and longer operative time (219.2 ± 95.6 min vs. 188.8 ± 82.3 min, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic approach was associated with lower overall morbidity in multivariate analysis (OR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.55-0.96), but not in case-matched analysis (14.4% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is associated with shorter hospital stay and lower conversion rate and may offer lower overall morbidity than laparoscopy after elective left side colectomy for diverticulitis. Controlled prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Predictors of Failed Transcystic Laparoscopic Common Bile Duct Exploration: Analysis of Multicenter Integrated Health System Database.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and validate the experts' opinion about anatomical predictors of failed transcystic LCBDE (TLCBDE) approach. METHODS: Patients undergoing LCBDE at Kaiser Permanente Southern California hospitals (2005-2015) were included. Predictors of failed TLCBDE were identified using bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 115 LCBDE, 89.6% were TLCBDE and 10.4% through choledochotomy. Success rate, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were 83.5%, 6.1%, and 3.8 days respectively. Only stone size:cystic duct ratio >1 (35% versus 63%, P = .044) was associated with failure of TLCBDE. In accordance with experts' opinion, there was a suggestive association of stone size ≥6 mm, cystic duct ≤4 mm, multiple stones, and proximal stone location with failure; however, these did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: LCBDE is an effective and safe mean of clearing common bile duct stones at community hospitals of an integrated health system. Previously cited contraindications for TLCBDE are not absolute, but rather predictors of failure.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis found at time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Analysis of a large integrated health care system database.

BACKGROUND: We compared endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) for managing choledocholithiasis found at time of cholecystectomy. METHODS: One hundred and five LCBDE (2005-2015) were compared to 195 LC/ERCP (2014-2015) from the Southern California Kaiser Permanente database. RESULTS: LC/ERCP was more effective at clearing the CBD (98% vs. 88.6%, p = 0.01); but required more procedures per patient (mean ± standard deviation, 1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 2.0 ± 0.12, p < 0.001). Morbidity, hospital length of stay and readmission were not different (P > 0.05). Four patients failed ERCP, while 12 patients failed LCBDE and had subsequent ERCP (10) or CBD exploration (2). All patients with RYGB had successful LCBDE. CONCLUSION: LC/ERCP is better than LCBDE in clearing CBD stones, but has similar morbidity and is an effective alternative for patients with RYGB.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Trends of Motor Peripheral Nerve Injury After Colorectal Surgery: Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.

BACKGROUND: Motor peripheral nerve injury is a rare but serious event after colorectal surgery, and a nationwide study of this complication is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the incidence, trends, and risk factors of motor peripheral nerve injury during colorectal surgery. DESIGN: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was surveyed for motor peripheral nerve injury complicating colorectal procedures. Risk factors for this complication were identified using logistic regression analysis. SETTINGS: The study used a national database. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing colorectal resection between 2005 and 2013 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence, trends, and risk factors for motor peripheral nerve injury complicating colorectal procedures were measured. RESULTS: We identified 186,936 colorectal cases, of which 50,470 (27%) were performed laparoscopically. Motor peripheral nerve injury occurred in 122 patients (0.065%). Injury rates declined over the study period, from 0.025% in 2006 to <0.010% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Patients with motor peripheral nerve injury were younger (mean ± SD; 54.02 ± 15.41 y vs 61.56 ± 15.95 y; p < 0.001), more likely to be obese (BMI ≥30; 43% vs 31%; p = 0.003), and more likely to have received radiotherapy (12.3% vs 4.7%; p < 0.001). Nerve injury was also associated with longer operative times (277.16 ± 169.79 min vs 176.69 ± 104.80 min; p < 0.001) and was less likely to be associated with laparoscopy (p = 0.043). Multivariate analysis revealed that increasing operative time was associated with nerve injury (OR = 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.04)), whereas increasing age was associated with a protective effect (OR = 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71-0.90)). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Motor peripheral nerve injury during colorectal procedures is uncommon (0.065%), and its rate declined significantly over the study period. Prolonged operative time is the strongest predictor of motor peripheral nerve injury during colorectal procedures. Instituting and documenting measures to prevent nerve injury is imperative; however, special attention to this complication is necessary when surgeons contemplate long colorectal procedures.

Development of penile hydrocele following placement of inflatable penile prosthesis: a rare entity.

INTRODUCTION: The development of a penile hydrocele following the placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) for erectile dysfunction has never been documented. We herein report an unusual complication of penile hydrocele formation that developed following placement of an IPP for erectile dysfunction. METHODS: The penile hydrocele was successfully repaired by excision of the hydrocele sac. RESULTS: Successful surgical repair of a penile hydrocele was accomplished following placement of an IPP without removal of any implant components. The penile implant was functional at the end of the procedure as well as at all scheduled follow-up appointments. CONCLUSIONS: With advances in both surgical techniques and improved devise technology, high volume penile implanters encounter fewer IPP-related complications such as infectious or mechanical complications. We herein report for the first time a rare complication of penile hydrocele development after IPP placement that was treated successfully with surgical excision of the hydrocele sac. Urologists who perform these types of procedures should be aware of this unusual complication and know that it is curable with prompt diagnosis and meticulous surgical repair.