van den Broek W T, van der Ende E D, Bijnen A B, Breslau P J, Gouma D J
Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
J Pediatr Surg. 2004 Apr;39(4):570-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2003.12.015.
New diagnostic tools such as ultrasound scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and diagnostic laparoscopy, have become available for children with suspected appendicitis but should be reserved for equivocal cases. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to identify this subgroup of children.
Patients from 2 different periods (period 1, 99 consecutive children [group 1] and period 2, 62 consecutive children [group 2] with suspected appendicitis) were prospectively evaluated. Variables predicting appendicitis were obtained from group 1. By means of a regression analysis, a scoring system was created and applied to the patients of group 2. Missed appendicitis and negative appendectomy rates obtained by clinical practice were compared with the results that would have been accomplished based on the scoring system. Thereafter, the scoring system was externally validated in a group of children presented at another hospital (group 3, n = 114).
The variables, leukocyte count > or = 10.10(9)/L (2 points); rebound tenderness (2 points); and temperature > or = 38 degrees C (1 point) correlated significantly with appendicitis. The scoring system was used to categorize patients into 3 groups: appendicitis unlikely, doubtful appendicitis, and suspected appendicitis. The specificity and sensitivity of the scoring system were, respectively, 85% and 89%. Applying the scoring system would lead to comparable negative appendectomy rates of 8% versus 6% using clinical judgement and a comparable number of performed laparoscopies (26% v 31%). However, it could lead to a lower missed appendicitis rate (1% v 6%) and a lower perforation rate (0% v 11%). External validation showed comparable performed laparoscopies (32%) and missed appendicitis (2%) rates but a higher negative appendectomy rate (19%), probably owing to a lower percentage of appendicitis in hospital (2, 47%) compared with hospital (1, 71%).
Children can be observed if leukocyte count is less than 10.10(9)/L and rebound tenderness is absent; a diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed if one of these is present, and if both are present one could perform an appendectomy.
超声扫描、计算机断层扫描(CT)及诊断性腹腔镜检查等新的诊断工具已可用于疑似阑尾炎患儿,但应仅用于诊断不明确的病例。本研究旨在开发一种评分系统以识别这一亚组患儿。
前瞻性评估来自2个不同时期的患者(时期1,99例连续的疑似阑尾炎患儿[第1组];时期2,62例连续的疑似阑尾炎患儿[第2组])。从第1组中获取预测阑尾炎的变量。通过回归分析创建一个评分系统,并应用于第2组患者。将临床实践中获得的漏诊阑尾炎率和阴性阑尾切除率与基于评分系统可能得到的结果进行比较。此后,在另一家医院就诊的一组患儿(第3组,n = 114)中对该评分系统进行外部验证。
白细胞计数≥10.10(9)/L(2分)、反跳痛(2分)和体温≥38℃(1分)这些变量与阑尾炎显著相关。该评分系统用于将患者分为3组:阑尾炎可能性不大、可疑阑尾炎和疑似阑尾炎。该评分系统的特异性和敏感性分别为85%和89%。应用评分系统导致的阴性阑尾切除率为8%,与临床判断的6%相当,腹腔镜检查的实施数量也相当(26%对31%)。然而,它可能导致更低的漏诊阑尾炎率(1%对6%)和更低的穿孔率(0%对11%)。外部验证显示腹腔镜检查的实施率(32%)和漏诊阑尾炎率(2%)相当,但阴性阑尾切除率更高(19%),这可能是因为与医院1(71%)相比,医院2的阑尾炎比例更低(47%)。
如果白细胞计数低于10.10(9)/L且无反跳痛,则可对患儿进行观察;如果存在其中一项,应进行诊断性腹腔镜检查;如果两项都存在,则可进行阑尾切除术。