Clinical Scoring Systems to Diagnose Complicated Acute Appendicitis in a Rural Hospital: Are They Good Enough?

Introduction Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries, whose incidence peaks in the second and third decades. The risk of mortality in uncomplicated AA is very low. There are many scoring systems to predict AA. Prediction scores are used less frequently to predict complicated AA. Rural hospitals are often constrained by a lack of round-the-clock imaging or special laboratory services, which may enable accurate diagnosis. Materials and methods This study aimed to determine whether prediction scores without imaging or C-reactive protein (CRP) levels could predict complicated AA in a rural setting. All cases of AA for the previous 13 months were recruited for the study. Demographic data, clinical signs and symptoms, complete blood counts, intraoperative findings, and the corresponding histopathological results were collated. The scoring systems (Alvarado, RIPASA, Tzanakis, and Ohmann) were calculated from the clinical and laboratory data. Demographic variables, clinical features, and histopathological findings are described as frequencies/proportions. Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were used to analyze differences between patients with complicated and uncomplicated AA. A receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was performed to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and determine whether appendicitis scores could predict complicated AA. Results There were 76 patients with a mean age of 29.1±13.0 years. Serositis was observed in 65% of the patients; mucosal ulceration was the most common microscopic finding, with a pathological diagnosis of AA in 58 (76.3%) patients. Rovsing's sign and the presence of phlegmon and granuloma were significantly different between those with and without complicated AA. The clinical prediction scores were not significantly different between the two groups. The Tzanakis and Ohmann scores were significant (cutoff: 6.5 and 7.25, p=0.001 and 0.01, respectively) in diagnosing AA (sensitivity/specificity of 98.3/66.7 and 98.3/94.4, respectively). With a cutoff of 5.75, the RIPASA score, with an AUC of 0.663 (p=0.09), showed the highest sensitivity (90.7) and specificity (76.6) for diagnosing complicated AA. Conclusion Diagnosing AA based solely on clinical presentation remains a challenge. This study showed that clinical scores such as those of Alvarado, RIPASA, Tzanakis, and Ohmann could not accurately predict complicated AA. Scoring systems without imaging and intraoperative diagnoses are not infallible; therefore, histopathological examination of the resected appendix is mandatory.