Zeb Muhammad, Khattak Sabir Khan, Samad Maryam, Shah Syed Shayan, Shah Syed Qasim Ali, Haseeb Abdul
Surgical Resident, General Surgery Ward, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan.
Surgical Resident, Orthopedic Ward, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan.
Heliyon. 2023 Jan 16;9(1):e13013. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13013. eCollection 2023 Jan.
Acute Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency encountered in emergency departments. To prevent the rate of negative appendectomies, different systems i.e. Alvarado score and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIR) scores were used, but their diagnostic accuracy in Asian population is questionable. Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score has showed promising results in the recent literature. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA scores in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA scores were prospectively applied to 132 included patients that were admitted with provisional diagnosis of acute appendicitis and then their surgery was performed in General Surgery Unit, Hayatabad Medical Complex Peshawar, Pakistan from 1st January 2022 to 31st July 2022. Final diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology report and scores were correlated with final report. Cut off value of score >7, >5 and >7.5 were set for Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA score, respectively according to previous literature. Statistics analysis was done for all 3 scoring systems on SPSS version 23.
Of 132 patients, there were n = 79(59.8%) males and n = 53(40.2%) females. Mean age was 24 years (SD ± 11.6) with youngest patient of 9 years and oldest one was 70 years old. Negative Appendectomy rate was 8.3%(n = 11). RIPASA score was superior to AIR and Alvarado score in Sensitivity, NLR, Accuracy and Area under the Curve. AIR score performed better in specificity, NPV, PLR compared to RIPASA and Alvarado score.
RIPASA score is an overall better scoring system in diagnosing acute appendicitis in compared to Alvarado and AIR score.
急性阑尾炎是急诊科最常见的外科急症。为了降低阴性阑尾切除术的发生率,人们使用了不同的评分系统,如阿尔瓦拉多评分和阑尾炎炎症反应评分(AIR),但其在亚洲人群中的诊断准确性值得怀疑。拉贾·伊斯特里·彭吉兰·阿娜克·萨利哈(RIPASA)评分在最近的文献中显示出了良好的结果。本研究的目的是比较阿尔瓦拉多、AIR和RIPASA评分在急性阑尾炎诊断中的效能。
前瞻性地将阿尔瓦拉多、AIR和RIPASA评分应用于132例纳入研究的患者,这些患者因初步诊断为急性阑尾炎入院,于2022年1月1日至2022年7月31日在巴基斯坦白沙瓦哈亚塔巴德医疗中心普通外科进行手术。最终诊断由组织病理学报告确认,评分与最终报告相关。根据以往文献,分别将阿尔瓦拉多、AIR和RIPASA评分的截断值设定为>7、>5和>7.5。使用SPSS 23版对所有3种评分系统进行统计学分析。
132例患者中,男性n = 79例(59.8%),女性n = 53例(40.2%)。平均年龄为24岁(标准差±11.6),最年轻的患者9岁,最年长的患者70岁。阴性阑尾切除术率为8.3%(n = 11)。RIPASA评分在敏感性、中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)、准确性和曲线下面积方面优于AIR和阿尔瓦拉多评分。与RIPASA和阿尔瓦拉多评分相比,AIR评分在特异性、阴性预测值(NPV)、阳性似然比(PLR)方面表现更好。
与阿尔瓦拉多和AIR评分相比,RIPASA评分在诊断急性阑尾炎方面是一个总体上更好的评分系统。