• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Does ultrasound predict intraoperative findings at cholecystectomy? An institutional review.

Does ultrasound predict intraoperative findings at cholecystectomy? An institutional review.

Shannon Stogryn, BSc, MBBS, Jennifer Metcalfe, MD, Ashley Vergis, MD, MMEd, FRCSC, FACS, Krista Hardy, MSc, MD, FRCSC. University of Manitoba.

 Introduction – Acute cholecystitis (AC) is one of the most common reasons for emergency admission to general surgical services. Ultrasound (US) is the mainstay of biliary tract imaging, but there have been few recent studies that test its ability to diagnose AC. The objective of this study was to determine how well an US diagnosis of AC correlates with intraoperative diagnosis. It is hypothesized that US under calls the frequency and severity of AC in the emergency setting leading to unexpected findings in the operating room.

Methods & Procedures – This retrospective review included all patients admitted to the acute care surgical service of a tertiary hospital in 2011 with suspected biliary pathology who underwent a diagnostic US and subsequent cholecystectomy. Major US indicators used to diagnose AC included cholelithiasis, wall thickening (>3mm), and a positive sonographic Murphy’s sign. Minor indicators included pericholecystic fluid and distension. The sensitivity (sen), specificity (spec), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of US were determined using the intraoperative diagnosis as the gold standard. Further analysis identified which US indicators were most predictive of an intraoperative diagnosis of AC. A logistic regression model was used to analyze the effect of age, gender, BMI, and diabetes on US reliability.

Results – Of the 288 patients receiving an US for biliary symptoms, 152 were definitively diagnosed with AC and 143 (94%) of these patients underwent emergency surgery (median time to OR = 23.03 hours). The ability of US to predict intraoperative findings is summarized in Table 1. The individual US indicators most predictive of AC are summarized in Table 2.

For the 102 patients with other biliary pathology who underwent cholecystectomy, there were 49 with intraoperative findings suggestive of AC (false negative rate of 48.04%). The logistic regression model showed that selected patient demographics had no significant effect on the accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis (BMI: p = 0.2403, age: p = 0.4149, gender: p = 0.6702, diabetes: p = .9407).

Conclusions – US is highly sensitive and specific for diagnosing AC. The poor NPV, however, confirms our hypothesis that US can under call AC. If an US impression of AC is not given, the presence of cholelithiasis, wall thickening and a sonographic Murphy’s sign are most predictive of AC. BMI, age, gender, and diabetes had no effect on the ability of US to correctly diagnose AC.
 

View Poster

109

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals