Ma Tianyi, Zhang Qian, Zhao Hongwei, Zhang Peng
Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, No. 168 Litang Road, Changping District, Beijing, 102218, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jan 8;15(1):1366. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-85791-9.
The objective of this study was to develop a novel scoring model, assess its diagnostic value for complex appendicitis, and compare it with existing scoring systems. A total of 1,241 patients with acute appendicitis were included, comprising 868 patients in the modeling group (mean age, 35.6 ± 14.2 years; 52.4% men) and 373 patients in the validation group (mean age, 36.2 ± 13.8 years; 53.1% men). Among them, 28.4% (346/1,241) were diagnosed with complex appendicitis. The distribution of clinical features, laboratory results, and imaging findings was comparable between the two groups. The data from the modeling group were used to develop the MZXBTCH scoring system, which subsequently validated using the validation group data. Based on postoperative pathological diagnoses, the validation group (n = 373) was scored using the Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA), Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR), and MZXBTCH scoring systems. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to compare the diagnostic efficacy of these scoring systems for complex appendicitis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified preoperative body temperature (odds ratio (OR) = 1.104; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.067-1.143; P < 0.001), preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level (OR = 1.002; 95% CI 1.001-1.002; P < 0.001), lymphocyte percentage (OR = 0.994; 95% CI 0.990-0.996; P < 0.001), appendiceal fecal stones (OR = 1.127; 95% CI 1.068-1.190; P < 0.001), periappendiceal fat stranding (OR = 1.133; 95% CI 1.072-1.198; P < 0.001), and appendix diameter (OR = 1.013; 95% CI 1.004-1.022; P < 0.001) as independent risk factors for complex appendicitis. Using R programming, a nomogram based on these independent risk factors was constructed to derive MZXBTCH scores. ROC curve analysis of the MZXBTCH model indicated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.773. ROC curve analysis revealed that the AUC values of the Alvarado, RIPASA, AIR, and MZXBTCH scoring systems were 0.66, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.82, respectively. Sensitivities were 64.29%, 66.33%, 68.37%, and 74.49%, and specificities were 55.64%, 60%, 75.64%, and 76.36%, respectively. Positive predictive values were 0.34, 0.37, 0.5, and 0.53, while negative predictive values were 0.81, 0.83, 0.87, and 0.89. Accuracy rates were 0.58, 0.62, 0.74, and 0.76, respectively. The MZXBTCH scoring system demonstrated higher sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with the Alvarado, RIPASA, and AIR scoring systems in distinguishing complex appendicitis.
本研究的目的是开发一种新型评分模型,评估其对复杂性阑尾炎的诊断价值,并与现有评分系统进行比较。共纳入1241例急性阑尾炎患者,其中建模组868例(平均年龄35.6±14.2岁;男性占52.4%),验证组373例(平均年龄36.2±13.8岁;男性占53.1%)。其中,28.4%(346/1241)被诊断为复杂性阑尾炎。两组患者的临床特征、实验室检查结果和影像学表现分布具有可比性。利用建模组数据开发MZXBTCH评分系统,随后用验证组数据进行验证。根据术后病理诊断结果,使用阿尔瓦拉多(Alvarado)、拉贾伊斯特里彭吉兰阿娜克萨利哈(Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha,RIPASA)、阑尾炎炎症反应(Appendicitis Inflammatory Response,AIR)和MZXBTCH评分系统对验证组(n = 373)进行评分。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,比较这些评分系统对复杂性阑尾炎的诊断效能。多因素logistic回归分析确定术前体温(比值比(OR)=1.104;95%置信区间(CI)1.067 - 1.143;P < 0.001)、术前C反应蛋白(CRP)水平(OR = 1.002;95% CI 1.001 - 1.002;P < 0.001)、淋巴细胞百分比(OR = 0.994;95% CI 0.990 - 0.996;P < 0.001)、阑尾粪石(OR = 1.127;95% CI 1.068 - 1.190;P < 0.001)、阑尾周围脂肪条索(OR = 1.133;95% CI 1.072 - 1.198;P < 0.001)和阑尾直径(OR = 1.013;95% CI 1.004 - 1.022;P < 0.001)为复杂性阑尾炎的独立危险因素。利用R编程,基于这些独立危险因素构建列线图以得出MZXBTCH评分。MZXBTCH模型的ROC曲线分析显示曲线下面积(AUC)为0.773。ROC曲线分析显示,阿尔瓦拉多、RIPASA、AIR和MZXBTCH评分系统的AUC值分别为0.66、0.68、0.76和0.82。敏感性分别为64.29%、66.33%、68.37%和74.49%,特异性分别为55.64%、60%、75.64%和76.36%。阳性预测值分别为0.34、0.37、0.5和0.53,阴性预测值分别为0.81、0.83、0.87和0.89。准确率分别为0.58、0.62、0.74和0.76。在区分复杂性阑尾炎方面,MZXBTCH评分系统比阿尔瓦拉多、RIPASA和AIR评分系统具有更高的敏感性、特异性和准确性。