BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed w...BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specif ically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modif ied Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in Kuwait population.METHODS: This study included 180 patients who underwent appendectomies and were documented as having "acute appendicitis" or "abdominal pain" in the operating theatre logbook(unit B) from November 2014 to March 2016. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value(PPV), negative predictive value(NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software.RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modif ied Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specif icity of 56%. The PPV was 89.3% and the NPV was 42.4%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded a 94.5% sensitivity and an 88% specif icity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modif ied Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate decreased significantly, from 18.4% to 10.7% for the modified Alvarado, and to 2.2% for the RIPASA scoring system, which was a signif icant difference(P<0.001) for both scoring systems.CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specif icity than the modif ied Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical p展开更多
AIM:To assess the reliability and practical applicability of the widely used Alvarado,Eskelinen,Ohhmann and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA)scoring systems in patients with suspected acute appendi...AIM:To assess the reliability and practical applicability of the widely used Alvarado,Eskelinen,Ohhmann and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA)scoring systems in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.METHODS:Patients admitted to our tertiary center due to suspected acute appendicitis constituted the study group.Patients were divided into two groups.appendicitis group(Group A)consisted of patients who underwent appendectomy and were histopathologically diagnosed with acute appendicitis,and non-appendicitis group(Group N-A)consisted of patients who underwent negative appendectomy and were diagnosed with pathologies other than appendicitis and patients that were followed non-operatively.The operative findings for the patients,the additional analyses from follow up of the patients and the results of those analyses were recorded using the follow-up forms.RESULTS:One hundred and thirteen patients with suspected acute appendicitis were included in the study.Of the 113 patients(62 males,51 females),the mean age was 30.2±10.1(range 18-67)years.Of the 113patients,94 patients underwent surgery,while the rest were followed non-operatively.Of the 94 patients,77patients were histopathologically diagnosed with acute appendicitis.Our study showed a sensitivity level of81%for the Alvarado system when a cut-off value of 6.5was used,a sensitivity level of 83.1%for the Ohmann system when a cut-off value of 13.75 was used,a sensitivity level of 80.5%for the Eskelinen system when a cut-off value of 63.72 was used,and a sensitivity level of 83.1%for the RIPASA system when a cut-off value of 10.25 was used.CONCLUSION:The Ohmann and RIPASA scoring systems had the highest specificity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.展开更多
BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is a common disease requiring surgery. Bedside ultrasound(BUS) is a core technique for emergency medicine(EM). The Alvarado score is a well-studied diagnostic tool for appendicitis. This study...BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is a common disease requiring surgery. Bedside ultrasound(BUS) is a core technique for emergency medicine(EM). The Alvarado score is a well-studied diagnostic tool for appendicitis. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patients' symptoms, Alvarado score and ultrasound(US) findings, as performed by emergency physicians(EPs) and radiologists, of patients with suspected appendicitis.METHODS: Three EM specialists underwent the BUS course and core course for appendicitis assessment. Patients suspected of having appendicitis were selected and their Alvarado and modif ied(m) Alvarado scores calculated. The specialists performed the BUS. Then, patients were given a formal US and surgery consultation if necessary. Preliminary diagnoses, admission or discharge from the emergency department(ED) and fi nal diagnosis were documented. The patients were also followed up after discharge from the hospital.RESULTS: The determined cut-off value was 2 for Alvarado and 3 for m Alvarado scores. The sensitivities of the two scores were 100%. Each score was used to rule out appendicitis. The results of EP-performed BUS were as follows: accuracy 70%, sensitivity 0.733, specifi city 0.673, + LR 2.24, and – LR 0.40(95%CI). Radiologists were better than EPs at diagnosing appendicitis and radiologists and EPs were equally strong at ruling out appendicitis by US. When US was combined with Alvarado and m Alvarado scores, EP US+Alvarado/m Alvarado scores ≤3 and radiology US+Alvarado/m Alvarado scores ≤4 perfectly ruled out appendicitis.CONCLUSION: BUS performed by EPs is moderately useful in detecting appendicitis. Combined with scoring systems, BUS may be a perfect tool for ruling out decisions in EDs.展开更多
Objective: The aim of our study was to propose a solution for rationalizing requests for ultrasound examination and CT scan in suspected acute appendicitis, based on use of the Alvarado score. Patients and Methods: We...Objective: The aim of our study was to propose a solution for rationalizing requests for ultrasound examination and CT scan in suspected acute appendicitis, based on use of the Alvarado score. Patients and Methods: We included in our study all patients consulting for pain of the right iliac fossa, whatever their age and sex, who had been diagnosed with acute appendicitis and who had undergone appendectomy. We used the Alvarado scoring system, based on clinical items and laboratory measurements, to diagnose appendicitis. Results: One hundred eleven patients, of whom 77 were men (69.4%) and 34 were women (30.6%), with a sex ratio of 2:2.6, were included. Mean age was 31.29 ± 1.31 years, with a range of 1 to 81 years. The diagnosis of definite appendicitis was established in 54 patients (48.6%). Abdominal ultrasound examination had been performed in 80 patients (72.1%). It established a diagnosis of appendicitis in 69 patients (86.2%), while in 11 patients (13.8%) the appendix was described as normal or was not visualized. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated good agreement between peroperative diagnosis and the result of the Alvarado score applied a posteriori. Ultrasound was not always contributory to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. It could be reserved for patients whose clinical and laboratory score indicated that appendicitis was unlikely.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition presented in emergency departments worldwide. Clinical scoring systems, such as the Alvarado and modified Alvarado scoring systems, were developed with the goal of reducing the negative appendectomy rate to 5%–10%. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA) scoring system was established in 2008 specif ically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modif ied Alvarado with the RIPASA scoring system in Kuwait population.METHODS: This study included 180 patients who underwent appendectomies and were documented as having "acute appendicitis" or "abdominal pain" in the operating theatre logbook(unit B) from November 2014 to March 2016. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value(PPV), negative predictive value(NPV), diagnostic accuracy, predicted negative appendectomy and receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve of the modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems were derived using SPSS statistical software.RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this study according to our criteria. The cut-off threshold point of the modif ied Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specif icity of 56%. The PPV was 89.3% and the NPV was 42.4%. The cut-off threshold point of the RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded a 94.5% sensitivity and an 88% specif icity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modif ied Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate decreased significantly, from 18.4% to 10.7% for the modified Alvarado, and to 2.2% for the RIPASA scoring system, which was a signif icant difference(P<0.001) for both scoring systems.CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the RIPASA score is a simple scoring system with better sensitivity and specif icity than the modif ied Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical p
文摘AIM:To assess the reliability and practical applicability of the widely used Alvarado,Eskelinen,Ohhmann and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis(RIPASA)scoring systems in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.METHODS:Patients admitted to our tertiary center due to suspected acute appendicitis constituted the study group.Patients were divided into two groups.appendicitis group(Group A)consisted of patients who underwent appendectomy and were histopathologically diagnosed with acute appendicitis,and non-appendicitis group(Group N-A)consisted of patients who underwent negative appendectomy and were diagnosed with pathologies other than appendicitis and patients that were followed non-operatively.The operative findings for the patients,the additional analyses from follow up of the patients and the results of those analyses were recorded using the follow-up forms.RESULTS:One hundred and thirteen patients with suspected acute appendicitis were included in the study.Of the 113 patients(62 males,51 females),the mean age was 30.2±10.1(range 18-67)years.Of the 113patients,94 patients underwent surgery,while the rest were followed non-operatively.Of the 94 patients,77patients were histopathologically diagnosed with acute appendicitis.Our study showed a sensitivity level of81%for the Alvarado system when a cut-off value of 6.5was used,a sensitivity level of 83.1%for the Ohmann system when a cut-off value of 13.75 was used,a sensitivity level of 80.5%for the Eskelinen system when a cut-off value of 63.72 was used,and a sensitivity level of 83.1%for the RIPASA system when a cut-off value of 10.25 was used.CONCLUSION:The Ohmann and RIPASA scoring systems had the highest specificity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
文摘BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is a common disease requiring surgery. Bedside ultrasound(BUS) is a core technique for emergency medicine(EM). The Alvarado score is a well-studied diagnostic tool for appendicitis. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between patients' symptoms, Alvarado score and ultrasound(US) findings, as performed by emergency physicians(EPs) and radiologists, of patients with suspected appendicitis.METHODS: Three EM specialists underwent the BUS course and core course for appendicitis assessment. Patients suspected of having appendicitis were selected and their Alvarado and modif ied(m) Alvarado scores calculated. The specialists performed the BUS. Then, patients were given a formal US and surgery consultation if necessary. Preliminary diagnoses, admission or discharge from the emergency department(ED) and fi nal diagnosis were documented. The patients were also followed up after discharge from the hospital.RESULTS: The determined cut-off value was 2 for Alvarado and 3 for m Alvarado scores. The sensitivities of the two scores were 100%. Each score was used to rule out appendicitis. The results of EP-performed BUS were as follows: accuracy 70%, sensitivity 0.733, specifi city 0.673, + LR 2.24, and – LR 0.40(95%CI). Radiologists were better than EPs at diagnosing appendicitis and radiologists and EPs were equally strong at ruling out appendicitis by US. When US was combined with Alvarado and m Alvarado scores, EP US+Alvarado/m Alvarado scores ≤3 and radiology US+Alvarado/m Alvarado scores ≤4 perfectly ruled out appendicitis.CONCLUSION: BUS performed by EPs is moderately useful in detecting appendicitis. Combined with scoring systems, BUS may be a perfect tool for ruling out decisions in EDs.
文摘Objective: The aim of our study was to propose a solution for rationalizing requests for ultrasound examination and CT scan in suspected acute appendicitis, based on use of the Alvarado score. Patients and Methods: We included in our study all patients consulting for pain of the right iliac fossa, whatever their age and sex, who had been diagnosed with acute appendicitis and who had undergone appendectomy. We used the Alvarado scoring system, based on clinical items and laboratory measurements, to diagnose appendicitis. Results: One hundred eleven patients, of whom 77 were men (69.4%) and 34 were women (30.6%), with a sex ratio of 2:2.6, were included. Mean age was 31.29 ± 1.31 years, with a range of 1 to 81 years. The diagnosis of definite appendicitis was established in 54 patients (48.6%). Abdominal ultrasound examination had been performed in 80 patients (72.1%). It established a diagnosis of appendicitis in 69 patients (86.2%), while in 11 patients (13.8%) the appendix was described as normal or was not visualized. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated good agreement between peroperative diagnosis and the result of the Alvarado score applied a posteriori. Ultrasound was not always contributory to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. It could be reserved for patients whose clinical and laboratory score indicated that appendicitis was unlikely.
