Díaz-Barrientos C Z, Aquino-González A, Heredia-Montaño M, Navarro-Tovar F, Pineda-Espinosa M A, Espinosa de Santillana I A
Servicio de Coloproctología, Hospital Universitario de Puebla, Puebla, México.
Servicio de Cirugía General, Hospital Universitario de Puebla, Puebla, México.
Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed). 2018 Apr-Jun;83(2):112-116. doi: 10.1016/j.rgmx.2017.06.002. Epub 2018 Feb 6.
Acute appendicitis is the first cause of surgical emergencies. It is still a difficult diagnosis to make, especially in young persons, the elderly, and in reproductive-age women, in whom a series of inflammatory conditions can have signs and symptoms similar to those of acute appendicitis. Different scoring systems have been created to increase diagnostic accuracy, and they are inexpensive, noninvasive, and easy to use and reproduce. The modified Alvarado score is probably the most widely used and accepted in emergency services worldwide. On the other hand, the RIPASA score was formulated in 2010 and has greater sensitivity and specificity. There are very few studies conducted in Mexico that compare the different scoring systems for appendicitis. The aim of our article was to compare the modified Alvarado score and the RIPASA score in the diagnosis of patients with abdominal pain and suspected acute appendicitis.
An observational, analytic, and prolective study was conducted within the time frame of July 2002 and February 2014 at the Hospital Universitario de Puebla. The questionnaires used for the evaluation process were applied to the patients suspected of having appendicitis.
The RIPASA score with 8.5 as the optimal cutoff value: ROC curve (area .595), sensitivity (93.3%), specificity (8.3%), PPV (91.8%), NPV (10.1%). Modified Alvarado score with 6 as the optimal cutoff value: ROC curve (area .719), sensitivity (75%), specificity (41.6%), PPV (93.7%), NPV (12.5%).
The RIPASA score showed no advantages over the modified Alvarado score when applied to patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis.
急性阑尾炎是外科急症的首要病因。其诊断仍颇具难度,尤其是在年轻人、老年人以及育龄期女性中,一系列炎症性疾病可能具有与急性阑尾炎相似的体征和症状。为提高诊断准确性,已创建了不同的评分系统,这些系统价格低廉、无创且易于使用和重复。改良的阿尔瓦拉多评分可能是全球急诊服务中使用最广泛且被认可的。另一方面,RIPASA评分于2010年制定,具有更高的敏感性和特异性。在墨西哥,比较不同阑尾炎评分系统的研究非常少。我们文章的目的是比较改良的阿尔瓦拉多评分和RIPASA评分在诊断腹痛并疑似急性阑尾炎患者中的效果。
2002年7月至2014年2月期间,在普埃布拉大学医院进行了一项观察性、分析性和前瞻性研究。用于评估过程的问卷应用于疑似患有阑尾炎的患者。
RIPASA评分以8.5作为最佳截断值:ROC曲线(面积.595),敏感性(93.3%),特异性(8.3%),阳性预测值(91.8%),阴性预测值(10.1%)。改良的阿尔瓦拉多评分以6作为最佳截断值:ROC曲线(面积.719),敏感性(75%),特异性(41.6%),阳性预测值(93.7%),阴性预测值(12.5%)。
当应用于疑似急性阑尾炎的患者时,RIPASA评分相较于改良的阿尔瓦拉多评分并无优势。