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.

Efficacy of modified Alvarado score combined with ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a prospective analytical study.

Background: Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency encountered in the emergency department, and diagnosis is difficult at times. Imaging and various clinical scoring are present to aid in the diagnosis. Ultrasound is an easily accessible modality and can accomplish more than a computed tomography (CT) scan at times. Modified Alvarado score (MAS) includes parameters that do not pose an extra financial burden to the patient. Combining both the imaging and clinical scoring systems, the authors decided to evaluate the combined MAS for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Methods: This is a prospective analytical study conducted in a tertiary hospital for one and a half years. Fifty-five patients with right lower quadrant pain were enroled, and evaluated along with an ultrasound. MAS and combined MAS were obtained, and the results of the histopathological examination were compared. Results: Out of 55 clinically diagnosed cases who underwent an emergency appendectomy, 27 were males and 28 were females. Of these, 50 cases had acute appendicitis as per histopathological examination. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of the MAS was 42%, 100%, 100%, 20.8%, 47.27%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of the USG were 84%, 40%, 93.3%, 20%, and 80%, respectively. Combining both the scores, the Combined MAS had the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy of 98.18%, 0%, 90.7%, 0%, and 89.09%, respectively. Conclusion: As the combination of USG has raised the sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the MAS, it can be an alternative to CT/MRI imaging for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in resource-limited settings. This score requires further studies to validate with a larger sample size.

Diagnostic Efficacy Study Comparing Tzanakis Scoring System With Alvarado Scoring System in Effective Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

Objective Among the common causes of abdominal emergencies, acute appendicitis ranks at the top, particularly in the young population. While negative appendectomy is not uncommon, the risk of appendicular perforation is substantial if the diagnosis is missed or delayed. This study evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the Tzanakis scoring system for acute appendicitis, comparing it with the Alvarado scoring system, considering the histopathological finding as the gold standard. Materials and methods This prospective observational study, conducted in the General Surgery department in a tertiary care hospital in India, included clinically diagnosed acute appendicitis cases posted for open or laparoscopic appendicectomy. Results The mean age for the 60 participants included in the study was 30.97±13.44, and the median was 24.5 yrs. The sensitivity of ultrasonography (USG) in diagnosing histopathological positive acute appendicitis was 89%, and the specificity was 50%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of the Tzanakis score were 87%, 50%, 96%, and 22%, respectively, and those of the Alvarado score were 54%, 75%, 96%, and 10%, respectively. Conclusion The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for the Alvarado and Tzanakis scores showed that the area under the curve (AUC) was greater for the Tzanakis scoring system (0.670) than for the Alvarado scoring system (0.598). Differences between the AUCs were not statistically significant. Although the Tzanakis scoring system is more sensitive than the Alvarado scoring system in diagnosing acute appendicitis, studies with larger samples are needed to show the superiority of this scoring system over the Alvarado scoring system.

Effect of in-hospital delay on acute appendicitis severity: does time really matter?

Appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. Evidence is controversial in determining if the in-hospital time delay to surgery can worsen the clinical presentation of appendicitis. This study aimed to clarify if in-hospital surgical delay significantly affected the proportion of complicated appendicitis in a large prospective cohort of patients treated with appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Patients were grouped into low, medium, and high preoperative risk for acute appendicitis based on the Alvarado scoring system. Appendicitis was defined as complicated in cases of perforation, abscess, or diffuse peritonitis. The primary outcome was correlation of in-hospital delay with the proportion of complicated appendicitis. The study includes 804 patients: 278 (30.4%) had complicated appendicitis and median time delay to surgery in low-, medium-, and high-risk group was 23.15 h (13.51-31.48), 18.47 h (10.44-29.42), and 13.04 (8.13-24.10) h, respectively. In-hospital delay was not associated with the severity of appendicitis or with the presence of postoperative complications. It appears reasonably safe to delay appendicectomy for acute appendicitis up to 24 h from hospital admission. Duration of symptoms was a predictor of complicated appendicitis and morbidity. Timing for appendicectomy in acute appendicitis should be calculated from symptoms onset rather than hospital presentation.

RIPASA versus Alvarado score in the assessment of acute appendicitis: A prospective study.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado scoring to accurately identify acute appendicitis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was carried out in the department of surgery. Patients were enrolled and scored using RIPASA and Alvarado scoring systems. Appendectomy was done, and the specimen was sent for histopathology examination, which was used as the gold standard for diagnosis. Among 400 recruits, 11 patients were lost to follow-up, giving us a sample size of 389 patients. The cut-off value for RIPASA and Alvarado scores was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy in diagnosing acute appendicitis of both scores were analyzed using SPSS. Results: Among 389 patients, 256 (66%) were males, and 277 (71%) were under the age of 40 years. RIPASA was more than 7.5 in 345 cases, while Alvarado was more than 7.0 in 261 patients. RIPASA score had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.8%, 87.9%, 98.9%, and 65.9%, respectively. In contrast, the ALVARADO score was 71.1% sensitive and 75.8% specific. RIPASA had a diagnostic accuracy of 95.12%, while Alvarado was only 71.46% accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Conclusion: Compared to the Alvarado scoring system, RIPASA is a better tool in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Risk of Conversion from Laparoscopic Appendectomy to Open Surgery: The Role of Clinical and Radiological Factors in Prediction.

Introduction: Laparoscopic appendectomy is the most preferred surgical method in the treatment of acute appendicitis. In our study, we aim to determine the clinical and radiological factors affecting conversion from laparoscopic appendectomy to open surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients older than 18 years, who were operated on with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the General Surgery clinic of Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Training and Research hospital between January 2020 and January 2022, were included in the study. The data consisting of clinical, laboratory, and radiological (computed tomography) findings of the patients were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as those whose surgery was completed laparoscopically (Group 1) and those converted from laparoscopic appendectomy to open surgery (Group 2). The risk of conversion to open surgery was analyzed by binary logistic regression analysis as univariate and multivariate models. Results: Appendectomy was performed in 831 patients within the specified period. The surgery of 31 (3.73%) patients started laparoscopically; however, they were completed by converting to open surgery. Multivariable analysis showed that the risk of conversion to open surgery increased with leukocyte count, Alvarado score and with the presence of periappendiceal fluid and lymphadenopathy on CT. Conclusion: Our study shows that patients with high risk of returning to open surgery can be identified preoperatively with the risk analysis method in which clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings are evaluated together. We conclude that, starting the operation of these patients with the open technique from the beginning will prevent unnecessary expenditures and reduce morbidities.

Adult appendicitis score versus Alvarado score: A comparative study in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Background: Acute Appendicitis (AA) is the most common abdominal surgical emergency. It requires proper management to decrease mortality and morbidity. Clinical scoring systems for diagnosing AA aimed to decrease the use of radiological scans and the rate of negative appendectomies (NA). We aim to assess the adult appendicitis score (AAS) in the diagnosis prediction of AA. Method: A retrospective study with 1303 cases of AA is performed. We compared the correlation of AAS and Alvarado scores to postoperative histopathology. Specificity, sensitivity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) were assessed. ROC was used. Results: AAS risk stratification was applied to the study population. Group I for a low probability, and groups II and III for an intermediate and high probability of AA. We found that 159 patients were matched in group I, 505, and 639 were in groups II and III of AAS, respectively. The correlation between Alvarado and AAS with HP was significant. AAS ≥ 16 presented sensitivity and specificity of 50 % and 75.47 %, respectively, with PPV of 97.96 % and NPV of 6.02 %, with an accuracy of 51.04 %. Regarding AAS ≥ 11, the sensitivity was 88.96 %, specificity was 39.62 %, PPV was 97.2 %, NPV was 13.21 %, and accuracy was 86.95 %. Conclusion: AAS is relatively more accurate than Alvarado's score, especially in selecting a safe candidate for discharge from an emergency. In addition, AAS is found to decrease the need for radiological images and NA rate more than Alvarado.

Validation of the modified Alvarado score on patients attending A&E units with suspected appendicitis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our prospective study was to confirm validity and diagnostic accuracy of the modified Alvarado score, which was developed at the Department of Surgery, University of Szeged, on patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis (right lower quadrant complaints) at the A&E department. PATIENT POPULATION, METHODS: 138 patients were included in our study between 01.01.2019 and 01.01.2020. For patients attending A&E, the first medic calculated and recorded the modified Alvarado score before surgical consultation. The consulting surgeon decided on further treatment without knowing the score. Validation of the score was based on the pathology report of the removed appendix (whether the operation was warranted, and if the score also supported indication for surgery), if there was readmission or surgery due to worsening symptoms after discharge from A&E. We also examined if there was any connection between the value of the Alvarado score and the severity of inflammation. Our aim was to prove that using modified Alvarado score at the A&E Units helps to reduce patient's waiting time and avoid unnecessary surgical consultations. Furthermore our study included measuring the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound examination (specificity, sensitivity). RESULTS: Based on the results, patients presenting at A&E had a mean modified Alvarado score of 6.5. Comparing the score to histological results showed that the specificity of the modified Alvarado score was 100%, and its sensitivity was 80.7%. Based on Spearman's rank correlation (0.796) and ROC analysis (AUC 0.968), the modified Alvarado score has an excellent predictive value in diagnosing acute appendicitis. When comparing the patients' waiting times with the use of modified Alvarado score and without it we found that there was a significant difference in group also in group under 4 points and in group over 7 points when using modified Alvarado score, so the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm should be much quicker with the help of the score. We found a correlation between the severity of inflammation based on the Fisher's exact test. Rank correlation of the same question also showed a significant connection. All patients had an US examination during their diagnostic course, its sensitivity was 82.6%, specificity was 87%. Based on this, we can conclude that the predictive value of the imaging method is good. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude according to our results that the predictive value of the modified score is excellent, and it can be safely applied by non-surgeons in urgent care in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The new score incorporates the results of an easily obtainable, ionising radiation free imaging method, the ultrasound, which was not included in previous scores. With the help of the new score, the number of unnecessary surgical referrals and waiting times for patients are reduced, excess examinations will become avoidable.

Assessment of the Diagnostic Reliability of Modified Alvarado Scores and Abdominal Ultrasonography in Acute Appendicitis.

Introduction Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency. Clinical assessment plays a major role; however, subtle clinical features in early stages and atypical presentation makes diagnosis challenging. Ultrasonography (USG) of the abdomen is a usual investigation that aids in diagnosis, however, it is operator dependent. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen is more accurate; however, it exposes the patient to hazardous radiation. The study aimed to combine clinical assessment and USG abdomen in the reliable diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic reliability of the Modified Alvarado Score and ultrasonography of the abdomen in acute appendicitis. Material and methods All patients with right iliac fossa pain, clinically suspected of having acute appendicitis, admitted to the department of general surgery, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), Bhubaneswar, between January 2019 and July 2020, who gave consent were included. Clinically, Modified Alvarado Score (MAS) was calculated, after which patients were subjected to USG abdomen, where findings were noted and a sonologic score was calculated. The study group was the patients who needed appendicectomy (n=138). Operative findings were noted. Histopathological diagnosis of acute appendicitis was deemed as confirmatory in these cases and was correlated with MAS and USG scores to determine diagnostic accuracy. Results A combined clinicoradiological (MAS + USG) score of seven showed a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 100%. The specificity of score seven or above was 100%; however, the sensitivity at 81.8%. The diagnostic accuracy of the clinicoradiological was 87.5%. The negative appendicectomy rate was 4.34%, with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis being confirmed for 95.7% of patients upon histopathological examination. Conclusion The MAS and USG of the abdomen, which is an affordable and non-invasive tool, showed increased diagnostic reliability, and hence it can help reduce the use of CECT abdomen, as CECT abdomen is considered as a gold standard for confirmation or exclusion of diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Use of the combined scoring system of MAS and USG abdomen can be used as a cost-effective alternative.

The diagnostic value of the systemic immune-inflammatory index in acute appendicitis cases in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen conditions and continues to cause mortality and morbidity despite all the improvements. There is still a necessity for inexpensive and easily calculable index and scoring systems with fewer side effects for the diagnosis of AA and the detection of complications. Since the systemic immune-inflammation index (SIII) is an index that could be used in this context, we aimed to measure the success and reliability of SIII for the diagnosis of AA and related complications and to contribute to the literature. METHODS: Our study was carried out retrospectively in a tertiary care hospital and conducted with 180 AA patients (study group-SG) and 180 control group (CG) patients. Demographic data, laboratory data, and clinical data of the cases, as well as the Alvarado score (AS), adult appendicitis score (AAS), and SIII and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) values calculated from laboratory data, were recorded in the previously created study form. p<0.05 was accepted as the significance level for the study. RESULTS: In this study, age and gender were similar in the SG and CG groups. SIII and NLR levels calculated in SG cases were found to be significantly higher than CG. In addition, SIII and NLR levels were found to be significantly higher in complicated AA cases than in complicated cases. Although SIII was more significant in the diagnosis of AA, NLR was more successful than SIII in detecting the presence of complications. SIII, NLR, AAS, and AS were significantly positively correlated in the diagnosis of AA. In the presence of peritonitis, SIII and NLR were also found to be significantly higher when compared to cases without peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SIII is a usable index in the diagnosis of AA and the prediction of complicated AA. However, NLR was found to be more significant than SIII in estimating complicated AA. In addition, it is recommended to be careful in terms of peritonitis in cases with high SIII and NLR levels.

Clinical scores (Alvarado and AIR scores) versus imaging (ultrasound and CT scan) in the diagnosis of equivocal cases of acute appendicitis: a randomized controlled study.

About 50% of acute appendicitis cases are atypical in their presentation. The objectives of this study was to assess and compare the feasibility of clinical scores [Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR)] and imaging [ultrasound and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scan] in the evaluation of equivocal cases of acute appendicitis in a clinical trial to identify that subset of patients who really need and will benefit from imaging, mainly CT scan. Methods: A total of 286 consecutive adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis were included. The clinical scores, including Alvarado and AIR scores and ultrasound, were done for all patients. Abdominal and pelvic CT scans were done for 192 patients to resolve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy rate of both clinical scores and imaging (ultrasound and CT scan) were compared. The final histopathology was used as the gold standard for which the diagnostic feasibility of the clinical score and imaging were compared. Results: Out of 286 total patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain, a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made in 211 patients (123 males and 88 females) after thorough clinical evaluation, clinical scores, and imaging, and they were submitted to appendicectomy. The overall prevalence of acute appendicitis proved by histopathology as a gold standard was 89.1% (188 patients) with a negative appendectomy rate of 10.9%. Simple acute appendicitis was reported in 165 (78.2%) patients and perforated appendicitis in 23 (10.9%) patients. For patients with equivocal clinical scores (≥4 to ≤6), the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy rate of CT scan were significantly higher than those of Alvarado and AIR scores. Patients with low clinical scores (≤4) and high clinical scores (≥7), the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy rate of clinical scores and imaging were comparable. The diagnostic feasibility of AIR scores was significantly higher than the Alvarado score, and the clinical scores were associated with significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than ultrasound. CT scan is unlikely to be needed and will add little to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis for patients with high clinical scores (≥7). The sensitivity of the CT scan for perforated appendicitis was lower than that for nonperforated appendicitis. The use of CT scans for query cases did not change the negative appendectomy rate. Conclusion: CT scan evaluation is beneficial only for patients with equivocal clinical scores. For patients with high clinical scores, surgery is recommended. AIR score was superior to the Alvarado score in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. A CT scan is usually not required for patients with low scores since acute appendicitis is unlikely; in such cases, ultrasound could be of help to exclude other diagnoses.

The Value of the Alvarado Score for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Relevant guidelines recommend the use of the Alvarado score (AS) to assist in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in children. To provide reference evidence for the clinical application of AS, we performed a meta-analysis of studies related to the diagnostic accuracy of AS in children with AA. METHODS: We searched the relevant literature from databases including CNKI, WanFangdata, VIP, CBM, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from the date of database creation to April 30, 2022, and screened them according to nadir criteria, followed by data extraction and then combined effect sizes to assess the accuracy of AS for diagnosis in children. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 2579 cases were finally included, including 19 studies with Alvarado score and 8 studies with modified Alvarado Score (1 study included both Alvarado Score and modified Alvarado Score). The combined sensitivity (SE) of AS for diagnosing AA in children was 76.0% (95% CI 74.0-78.0%; I2 = 95.1%); combined specificity (SP) was 71.0% (95% CI 68.0-74.0%; I2 = 86.4%); combined positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 2.43 (95% CI 1.92- 3.07; I2 = 78.7%); combined negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.41; I2 = 94.2%); combined AUC = 0.8092, Q∗ = 0.7439; combined diagnostic ratio (DOR) was 8.96 (95% CI 5.65 -14.21; I2 = 76.2%). The combined effect size I2 was greater than 50% for all children with a modified AS diagnosis of AA, so all analyses used a random-effects model, which showed a combined SE of 87.0% (95% CI 85.0 - 88.0%; I2 = 85.5%); the combined SP was 47.0% (95% CI 43.0 - 51.0%. I2 = 88.7%); combined LR+ was 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.17; I2 = 85.9%); combined LR-was 0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.39; I2 = 74.3%); combined AUC = 0.8672 and Q∗ = 0.7978. The combined DOR was 6.43 (95% CI 3.38-12.26; I2 = 80.0%). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the accuracy of AS in diagnosing AA in children is moderate, and AS can be an auxiliary tool for the diagnosis of AA in children, relying on AS alone for the diagnosis of AA is not recommended; AS can be further improved scientifically to increase its diagnostic value.

A systematic review and meta-regression for validation of the Alvarado score as a tool for predicting acute appendicitis.

The Alvarado score (AS) has not been widely used for diagnosing acute appendicitis although it has shown to be a good predictor for diagnosing appendicitis. The aim was to perform a systematic review of the available literature and synthesize the evidence. Methods: A systematic review was performed as per the PRISMA guidelines using search engines like Ovid, PubMed, and Google Scholar with predefined, strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the QUADAS 2 tool. Summary statistics were performed for all variables. A linear regression model was performed between dependent and independent variables using STATA software. Heterogeneity testing showed significant heterogeneity within the included studies; hence, a forest plot with pooled estimates could not be constructed, and therefore a meta-regression was performed. Results: Seventeen full-text articles met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten of which were identified as low-risk studies. Five studies were included in final data pooling with total patients being 2239 and mean age of 31.9 years. (1) Linear regression demonstrated an association between 'histological appendicitis' and 'AS 7-0' with patients receiving intervention, with a significant P value of less than 0.005. (2) Meta-regression demonstrated a positive coefficient (0.298), a positive Z score of 2.20 with a significant P value of 0.028 for patients with 'high AS' who received interventions that were significantly proven to be 'histologically appendicitis', indicating a cause-and-effect relationship. Conclusion: High AS (7 and above) is a significant predictor of acute appendicitis. The authors recommend further prospective randomized clinical trials to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

Comparison of Alvarado score, appendicitis inflammatory response score (AIR) and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha appendicitis (RIPASA) score in predicting acute appendicitis.

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: RIPASA score is an overall better scoring system in diagnosing acute appendicitis in compared to Alvarado and AIR score.

Classification systems of acute appendicitis as an indicator for paediatric surgical consultation of children with acute abdominal pain.

AIM: This study examined if the classification systems for acute appendicitis could be applied in the emergency department as an indicator for surgical consultation, in order to reduce unnecessary paediatric surgery admission. METHODS: The Alvarado Score (ALS) and the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) were applied. The decisions for hospitalisation and treatment were made independent of the scores. RESULTS: In total, 307 children with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis were included. We used a cut-off point of 7 and divided the patients into groups; the group with score ≥ 7 points was considered the positive ALS and/or PAS group, and the group with score < 7 points was the negative ALS and/or PAS group. The same process for cut-values set at 6 points was followed. The joint probabilities for the 7-point-thresholds were: ALS-sensitivity 84%, PAS-sensitivity 85%, ALS-specificity 92%, PAS-specificity 92%, ALS-positive predictive value (PPV) 83%, PAS-PPV 84% and 93% negative predictive value (NPV) for both scores. Considering the 6-point-thresholds, we estimated: 94% sensitivity for both scores, 74% ALS-specificity, 84% PAS-specificity, 66% ALS-PPV, 73% PAS-PPV, 91% ALS-NPV and 97% PAS-NPV. CONCLUSION: The scoring systems provided acceptable prediction of patients with and without appendicitis. They may be of use in the emergency department, as assistive diagnostic-tools, in order to reduce paediatric surgery consultations, admissions and treatment costs.

Significance of Histopathology of Appendectomy Specimens: Analysis From a Teaching Hospital of Pakistan.

Background Histopathology of a tissue specimen plays a crucial role in formulating the final diagnosis of any disease. It confirms whether the histopathological findings are in correspondence with the clinical diagnosis and thus suggests an optimal management plan. Standard surgical practices guide that every human tissue specimen must undergo postoperative tissue analysis unless indicated otherwise. Objective To determine the significance of histopathology in determining the final diagnosis of appendectomy specimens. Materials and methods This retrospective clinical study conducted in May 2022 included 100 patients operated for appendectomy from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, in the emergency room of the Department of General Surgery, Unit-III, Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. Data were retrieved from patients' records and the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). A Google Forms-based pro forma (Google, Mountain View, CA) was generated to include the demographic details, clinical manifestations, and histopathology reports of the patients. Descriptive analysis was completed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Results Fifty-two patients were females out of the total 100. The mean age at presentation was 23.02 ± 12.02 years. Of the samples, 54% were not sent for histopathology. Among the remaining ones, 27% of cases were proven to be acute appendicitis. Alvarado score was 7-10 in 50% of patients. Other lesions proven by histopathology were appendiceal phlegmon (4%), perforated appendix (4%), mucocele (1%), carcinoid tumor (1%), tuberculosis (1%), and adenocarcinoma (1%). Conclusions Histopathological analysis is the gold standard for the tissue diagnosis of a disease. The high percentage of the samples not sent for histopathology is alarming since the appendix is not only a site for inflammatory pathologies but for neoplastic lesions as well. This practice depicts that the incidence of non-inflammatory pathologies is being ignored by healthcare professionals and there is a dire need to emphasize the significance of acquiring histopathology reports for the specimens of appendectomy in all circumstances.

The Rate of Appendicular Neoplasm in Patients Who Underwent Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh.

Background Appendicitis is a common reason for hospitalization. Rarely do people with acute appendicitis have an appendiceal mass called an abscesses or inflamed phlegmon. The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of different appendiceal tumors including neuroendocrine tumors, adenocarcinoma, carcinoid, and mucinous and evaluate patient demographic data (e.g., age and gender) at a major tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Materials and methods We conducted a cross-sectional analytical review of patient records of 1513 patients who received an appendectomy and were diagnosed with acute appendicitis from 2015 to 2020 at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. We used nonprobability sampling to collect the sample. The study included patients older than 14 years. We also recorded patient demographic information, including age, gender, history, and final pathology. Results The mean age of our study population was 27.9 years (standard deviation [SD], 12.3 years). Our study had 958 male patients and 555 female patients. One thousand four hundred fifty-eight patients (96.3%) had right lower quadrant (RLQ) tenderness, and 228 patients had fever (15.0%). One thousand one hundred thirteen patients (73.5%) had rebound tenderness, 1,178 had nausea (77.8%), and 1,100 had high white blood cell (WBC) counts (72.7%). One thousand four hundred eighty-six patients received laparoscopic surgery (98.2%). Most patients (95.3%; n=1,443) had no postoperative complications. Appendicitis pathology was present in 1,381 patients (91.3%). Only 15 patients (1%) had tumor-related pathology, and these patients were significantly older than patients with nontumor-related pathology (p<.001) and had less RLQ pain, rebound tenderness, and pain migration but higher WBC counts. Pain migration was significantly inversely correlated with age: as age increased, pain migration was reported less often (odds ratio, 0.99, 95% confidence interval, 0.98 to 0.99; p=0.001). Conclusion This study aimed to determine the prevalence and types of appendiceal tumors in cases of acute appendicitis and the corresponding patient demographic data at a major tertiary care center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. According to our results, patients with appendicitis present with fever, rebound tenderness, nausea, and high WBC count. Appendiceal masses mainly occur in a later age group with less migration of pain and high WBC count. However, migration of pain is inversely related to age. Physicians treating patients with acute appendicitis should bear these data in mind and consider the presence of appendiceal tumors in appropriate patients.

A comparative study of the RIPASA and Alvarado scores in geriatric patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: While abdominal pain is one of the most prevalent reasons for seeking medical attention, diagnosing elderly adults with acute appendicitis (AA) may be difficult. In this study, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Alvarado ratings were evaluated for diagnostic accuracy in patients who reported to the emergency department complaining of abdominal pain and received surgery for AA. METHODS: The data of patients over the age of 65 years who reported to the ER and had appendectomy after being diagnosed with AA were evaluated in this retrospective cohort study. For each patient, the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado and RIPASA scores was determined individually. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included in the research. The average patient was 71.2 years old, with a male preponderance of 46.5%. Alvarado's score was found to have an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.799, the Youden's index of 0.549, and a p-value of 0.001 after a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study of the Alvarado score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. The AUC was 0.886 (95%CI 0.799-0.944), the Youden's index was 0.642, and a p-value of 0.001 was found in the ROC analysis of the RIPASA score in identifying the diagnosis of AA. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the two scores used to diagnose AA, we found no statistically significant difference between the RIPASA and Alvarado scores (p=0.09), although the Youden's index for the RIPASA score was higher.

The Role of Alvarado Score in Predicting Acute Appendicitis and Its Severity in Correlation to Histopathology: A Retrospective Study in a Qatar Population.

Background/objective Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common surgical emergencies that require a proper diagnosis to avoid a negative outcome in the case of missed or delayed diagnosis. Our study aims to assess the diagnostic power of the Alvarado score and the prediction of the severity of acute appendicitis in correlation to intraoperative findings and the final histopathology (HP) result. Methods This retrospective study was applied to 1,303 patients with clinically proven acute appendicitis (AA) and available HP results. We correlated Alvarado score to the gold standard HP and intraoperative findings. We selected the cutoff point of Alvarado at 5 and 7 as they were the most frequent cutoff value mentioned in the literature and based on the ROC curve in this study to assess sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results The mean age of the study cohort is 33.3 ± 9.5 years, with a male predominance (75.8%). The negative appendectomy (NA) rate was 4%. The operative complication rate was 1.2%, and we recorded one mortality case (0.1%). The diagnostic evidence of AA was in 95.9% of cases. Alvarado score ≥ 7 presented sensitivity and specificity of 66.4% and 69.8%, respectively, with PPV of 98.1% and NPV of 8.1%, with an accuracy of 66.5%. For Alvarado score ≥ 5, the sensitivity was 91.2%, specificity was 22.6%, PPV was 96.5%, NPV was 9.8%, and accuracy was 88.4%. In addition, we demonstrated statistical significance between Alvarado risk stratification with HP and intraoperative grades (p = 0.001 each). Conclusion The Alvarado scoring system alone is not enough to diagnose AA with unsatisfactory sensitivity and specificity. However, it is a good indicator of the severity of AA that we can depend on to prioritize those patients waiting for surgery.

Evaluación de la Escala de Alvarado en el diagnóstico clínico de la apendicitis aguda en el Servicio de Urgencias del Hospital Nacional de Itauguá en los años 2018 y 2019 / Evaluation of the Alvarado Scale in the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the Emergency Department of the Hospital Nacional Itauguá in the years 2018 and 2019

RESUMEN Introducción: la estratificación del riesgo de los pacientes con sospecha de apendicitis aguda mediante sistemas de puntuación clínica podría orientar la toma de decisiones para reducir los ingresos, optimizar la utilidad de las imágenes diagnósticas y prevenir exploraciones quirúrgicas negativas. Objetivo: evaluar la utilidad de la Escala de Alvarado para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en el Servicio de Urgencias del Hospital Nacional de Itauguá de enero del 2018 a diciembre del 2019. Metodología: estudio observacional descriptivo de corte transversal con muestreo no probabilístico de casos consecutivos. Para la recolección de datos se utilizó una planilla electrónica de Microsoft Excel contenidos en las fichas de los pacientes para su posterior análisis y presentación estadística descriptiva. Resultados: se registraron 121 casos de apendicitis aguda, de los cuales 53.71% fueron del sexo masculino. El 100% de la muestra presentó dolor en fosa iliaca derecha; la presencia del signo de Blumberg se detectó en el 67% de los pacientes. El 49.85% de la muestra presentó un puntaje 8-10 según la Escala de Alvarado. El 90.08% de los pacientes presentó algún tipo de apendicitis en la anatomía patológica. Conclusión: el trabajo revela que la Escala de Alvarado es una herramienta útil e importante para la aplicación sistemática de un score diagnóstico en los servicios de urgencia, lo cual permite disminuir consecuentemente el margen de error diagnóstico y las posibles implicaciones sanitarias, económicas y legales.

ABSTRACT Introduction: risk stratification of patients with suspected acute appendicitis using clinical scoring systems could guide decision-making to reduce admissions, optimize the usefulness of diagnostic imaging and prevent negative surgical scans. Objective: to evaluate the usefulness of the Alvarado Scale for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the Emergency Department of the Hospital Nacional Itauguá from January 2018 to December 2019. Methodology: descriptive observational cross-sectional study with nonprobabilistic sampling of consecutive cases. A Microsoft Excel electronic spreadsheet contained in the patient files was used for the collection of data for further analysis and descriptive statistical presentation. Results: 121 cases of acute appendicitis were recorded, of which 53.71% were male. 100% of the sample presented pain in the right iliac fossa; the presence of Blumberg sign was detected in 67% of the patients. 49.85% of the sample presented an 8-10 score according to the Alvarado Scale. 90.08% of the patients presented some type of appendicitis in the pathological anatomy. Conclusion: the study reveals that the Alvarado Scale is a useful and important tool for the systematic application of a diagnostic score in emergency services, which allows to reduce consequently the margin of diagnostic error and the possible sanitary, economic and legal implications.