Alvarado Score Research Articles

Tailoring of computed tomography scanning in patients with acute appendicitis according to combined assessment by Alvarado score and focused ultrasound

Tailoring of computed tomography scanning in patients with acute appendicitis according to combined assessment by Alvarado score and focused ultrasound

Correlation between Alvarado score and preoperative serum hyperbilirubinemia as a new diagnostic modality for severity of acute appendicitis

Correlation between Alvarado score and preoperative serum hyperbilirubinemia as a new diagnostic modality for severity of acute appendicitis

THE ROLE OF INFLAMMATORY PARAMETERS AND SCORING SYSTEMS IN PREDICTING COMPLICATED ACUTE APPENDICITIS

Aim: To assess the complications associated with acute appendicitis (AA) and to evaluate how specific routine patient parameters influence disease severity. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was carried out on patients diagnosed with AA who presented to the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data collected included demographic details, blood test results, and specific scoring systems utilized in the ED. Results: Of the 223 patients studied, 63.7% were male with a mean age of 37.5 ± 16.8 years. Patients with complicated appendicitis (CA) showed significantly elevated hematological parameters such as neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), C-reactive protein (CRP), systemic immune inflammation index (SII), white blood cell count (WBC), and neutrophil levels. Conversely, decreased lymphocyte/C-reactive protein ratio (LCRP) and lymphocyte levels were noted. Furthermore, CA cases exhibited significantly greater Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) and Alvarado scores. In the context of diagnosing CA, the AIR score had a sensitivity of 85.9% and a specificity of 47.9% with a cut-off value of ≥6 (95% CI 0.675-0.821, Area Under the Curve (AUC): 0.748; p

EFFECTIVENESS OF TOTAL LEUKOCYTE COUNT (TLC) AND C-REACTIVE PROTEIN (CRP) IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS

Acute appendicitis is a typical surgical emergency. Diagnosing it can be challenging due to variable symptoms. Total leukocyte count (TLC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) are commonly used to assess inflammation and guide treatment. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of TLC and CRP in acute appendicitis to determine appropriate management. Objective: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of TLC and CRP in predicting acute appendicitis and their role in determining the proper management approach, either conservative or surgical. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery at Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Ojha Campus, from July 2023 to March 2024. A total of 87 adult patients with clinical signs of appendicitis and an Alvarado score of greater than 4 were enrolled. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 22. Variables included socio-demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, and levels of TLC and CRP. Both conservative and surgical management approaches were analysed, with laparoscopic appendectomy being the most common procedure. Results: Among the 87 patients, most were male. TLC and CRP levels were similar across genders, with notable variations in socio-demographic characteristics. CRP levels were more frequently elevated in patients managed conservatively compared to those managed surgically. Both TLC and CRP were elevated in 43 patients (49.4%), highlighting the value of using both markers together. Surgical intervention, primarily laparoscopic appendectomy, was the preferred treatment, with suppurative inflammation being the most common histopathological finding. Conclusion: The combination of TLC and CRP significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis. TLC correlates more strongly with the need for surgical intervention, whereas CRP did not show a significant association with management type. Both markers are useful in assessing the duration of the complaint, but they are not substitutes for clinical judgment. Further research is warranted to refine their diagnostic utility and evaluate their impact on surgical care availability in resource-limited settings.

The diagnostic value of systemic inflammation indices in pregnant women with acute appendicitis and their relationship with the duration of hospital stay

Aim: Physiological and anatomical changes occurring during pregnancy can complicate the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA). This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of systemic inflammation indices in distinguishing AA in pregnant women and to assess their relationship with hospital stay duration. Material and Methods: This retrospective study encompassed 32 pregnant patients who underwent appendectomy and 32 healthy pregnant (control group). Systemic inflammation indices were calculated based on neutrophil (N), platelet (P), and lymphocyte (L) levels as follows: The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) = N/L; the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) = P/L; systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) = (N×P)/L. Results: The AA group had higher median levels of PLR (30.9 vs. 22.4, p = 0.035), NLR (6.1 vs. 3.5, p < 0.001), and SII (1370 vs. 807, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. Systemic inflammation indices showed a positive correlation with the Alvarado score and the length of hospital stay. SII values demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in predicting AA compared to NLR and PLR values. The threshold value for SII in predicting AA was identified as >1316, with a sensitivity of 85.8% and a specificity of 72.5%. Conclusions: Systemic inflammation indices, particularly SII, demonstrate strong diagnostic value in distinguishing AA in pregnant women. SII demonstrated superior accuracy over NLR and PLR, correlating with both the Alvarado score and hospital stay, suggesting its utility as a diagnostic and prognostic marker.

Acute Appendicitis at the Bougouni Reference Health Center

Introduction: Acute appendicitis is an acute inflammation of the vermicular appendix. The objective was to describe the epidemiological, clinical, anatomo-pathological, and therapeutic aspects of appendicitis. Methodology: We carried out a prospective study from January 2020 to December 2020. Results: We listed 60 cases of acute appendicitis which represented 34.4% of surgical emergencies. The average age was 30.9 years. There is a predominance of men with a sex ratio of 1.61. The average consultation time was 2 days. The clinical manifestation was pain in the right iliac fossa. Abdominal ultrasound revealed thickening of the appendicular wall in 55 (91.67%) of cases. The blood count showed hyperleukocytosis in 59 (98.3%). The Alvarado score was between 08 -10 in 57 (95%) of cases. The appendix was laterocecal in 36 (60%) of cases. Appendectomy with burial of the stump was performed in 40 (66.7%), appendectomy without burial in 20 (33.3%). The postoperative complication was parietal abscess 1 (1.66%). Mortality was 0%. Conclusion: Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in our department. Early treatment would help reduce complications.

Appendicitis in Children: Does Age Really Matter?

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a frequent and emergent surgical abdominal condition that presents some particularities and challenges in young children. Data of 402 children aged <16 years with a confirmed diagnosis of AA were retrospectively reviewed. Included patients were divided into two groups: Group A (preschool children aged ≤5 years, n = 44) and Group B (school children aged >5 years, n = 358). Clinical presentation, biological findings, calculated diagnosis scores (paediatric appendicitis score [PAS] and Alvarado score), intraoperative findings and outcomes were comparatively analysed between the two groups. Children of Group A had more likely fever, bowel disorders, diffuse abdominal pain and diffuse tenderness than those of Group B (P = 0.001, P = 0.005, P = 0.006 and P = 0.001, respectively). Regarding biomarkers, the mean of white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels was higher in Group A than in Group B (18,849 cell/mm3 and 162.8 mg/L in Group A versus 15,938 cell/mm3 and 86.7 mg/L in Group B, P = 0.003 and < 0.001, respectively). The mean of calculated PAS and Alvarado scores was higher in Group A than in Group B (8.2 ± 1.1 and 8.2 ± 1 vs. 7.5 ± 1.4 and 7.4 ± 1.5, P = 0.003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Most children with a calculated PAS and Alvarado score equal to or higher than 8 belonged to Group A (PAS: 84.1% vs. 58.4%, P = 0.001, Alvarado score: 84.1% vs. 55.6%, P < 0.001). The perforation of the appendix was seen in 77.3% of Group A patients and only in 41.5% of children in Group B (P < 0.0001). The mean length of stay was 5.1 ± 1.9 days in Group A and 4.3 ± 2.8 days in Group B but without any statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.094). AA in preschool children is associated with atypical presentation and rapid progression of the disease making the early diagnosis mostly challenging in our settings.

Nationwide prospective audit for the evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults: right iliac fossa treatment (RIFT)-Turkey.

Appendicitis is the most prevalent surgical emergency. The negative appendicectomy rate and diagnostic uncertainty are important concerns. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of current appendicitis risk prediction models in patients with acute right iliac fossa pain. A nationwide prospective observational study was conducted, including all consecutive adult patients who presented with right iliac fossa pain. Diagnostic, clinical and negative appendicectomy rate data were recorded. The Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR), Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Adult Appendicitis Score systems were calculated with collected data to classify patients into risk categories. Diagnostic value and categorization performance were evaluated, with use of risk category-based metrics including 'true positive rate' (percentage of appendicitis patients in the highest risk category), 'failure rate' (percentage of patients with appendicitis in the lowest risk category) and 'categorization resolution' (true positive rate/failure rate). A total of 3358 patients from 84 centres were included. Female patients were less likely to undergo surgery than men (71.5% versus 82.5% respectively; relative risk 0.866, 95% c.i. 0.834 to 0.901, P < 0.001); with a three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate (11.3% versus 4.1% respectively; relative risk 2.744, 95% c.i. 2.047 to 3.677, P < 0.001). Ultrasonography was utilized in 56.8% and computed tomography in 75.2% of all patients. The Adult Appendicitis Score had the best diagnostic performance for the whole population; however, only RIPASA was significant in men. All scoring systems were successful in females patients, but Adult Appendicitis Score had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value. The RIPASA and the Adult Appendicitis Score had the best categorization resolution values, complemented by their exceedingly low failure rates in both male and female patients. Alvarado and AIR had extremely high failure rates in men. The negative appendicectomy rate was low overall, but women had an almost three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate despite lower likelihood to undergo surgery. The overuse of imaging tests, best exemplified by the 75.2% frequency of patients undergoing computed tomography, may lead to increased costs. Risk-scoring systems such as RIPASA and Adult Appendicitis Score appear to be superior to Alvarado and AIR.

"Amr Sign": A Case-Control Study Evaluating the Diagnostic Value of a New Clinical Sign in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis.

Introduction Acute appendicitis, a prevalent cause of acute abdominal pain and a common indication for emergency surgery, presents a diagnostic challenge due to its diverse clinical presentation and variability in appendix location and symptoms. Traditional diagnostic approaches, including physical examination, clinical scoring systems, and imaging techniques, have limitations. This study introduces the "Amr sign," a new diagnostic indicator characterized by sudden reflex hyperextension of the neck upon palpation of the right iliac fossa, which is hypothesized to reflect local peritoneal irritation from an inflamed appendix. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study at Alwakra Hospital from November 2016 to January 2019 that included 195 patients aged 15 years and older with right iliac fossa pain and an Alvarado score of four or more. The "Amr sign" was evaluated alongside standard clinical examination and imaging results. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed via histopathological confirmation, which is the gold standard. Results The "Amr sign" had a sensitivity of 68.6% and a specificity of 67.3%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 89%, whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) was 45%. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.679 for the "Amr sign" compared with 0.622 for the other imaging modalities, suggesting comparable diagnostic performance. The "Amr sign" demonstrated a higher likelihood ratio of a positive test (2.3) and a lower likelihood ratio of a negative test (0.46). Conclusion The "Amr sign" is a promising diagnostic tool for acute appendicitis, offering a simple, reliable, and quick test that can be performed by less experienced physicians. While its sensitivity and specificity are moderate, its high PPV suggests that it is particularly useful in confirming appendicitis. Further research and validation are needed to fully establish its role in clinical practice.

A comparative study of Appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score with Alvarado score in diagnosis of acute appendicitis at KCMC Hospital

Background: Acute appendicitis is an acute inflammation of the appendix, most resulted from obstruction of the lumen of the appendix. It is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen. Although a very common and long-known phenomenon, appendicitis remains a diagnostic challenge for most surgeons. Objective: To compare the validity of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score with Alvarado score in diagnosis of acute appendicitis at KCMC Hospital. Methods: A prospective hospital based cross sectional study done over a period of six months (September 2016 to March 2017). Patients were admitted to general surgical ward after the diagnosis of acute appendicitis reached and all parameters included in the AIR score and Alvarado score were prospectively recorded on patients presenting symptoms of acute appendicitis. All removed appendix specimens were sent for histopathological examination. Data was entered and analyzed using statistical package of social sciences version 20. Results: A total of 35 patients enrolled in this study, 57% male, male to female ratio 1.3:1, mean age of 27(14-49) years. 31 patients confirmed histologicaly to have features of acute appendicitis, among these inflamed appendicitis were 51.6%. And advanced appendicitis 48.4% and negative appendicectomy rate was 11.4%. The sensitivity and specificity of both AIR and Alvarado score were 54.4%, 77.4% and 75%, 75%. PPV and NPV were 94.4%, 96% and 17.6%, 30% respectively. Conclusion: From our study we have seen Alvarado score is a better assessment tool that is accurate helping in diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Its high sensitivity and ROC is greater than that of the AIR score. We conclude that AS has outperform AIR score in accuracy in diagnosis of AA.

A Comparison of the Alvarado Score and the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) Score in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background Diagnosing acute appendicitis remains a problem, especially in teenagers with right lower quadrant pain.Imaging studies aid in accurate diagnosis but have limitations such as cost and availability. The Modified Alvarado Scoring System (MASS) is simple and cost-effective with fewer parameters. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitisscoring system (RIPASA), designed for Asian populations, includes more parameters. This study compares the effectiveness of RIPASA and Alvarado scores in diagnosing acute appendicitis in a specific clinical setting. Objectives To compare the scoring systems of RIPASA and Alvarado in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis at a tertiary care hospital. Methods Data has been collected from all patients who attended the NRI general hospital emergency department and outpatient wing with acute appendicitis, admitted as inpatients based on clinical history and relevant investigations. Patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected and the basic investigations were done. Summary statistics were done using mean, standard deviation and proportions. Inferential statistics were done by using an independent t-test, kappa statistic, sensitivity and specificity with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All the measurements are done using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) software version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and open epidemiological (OpenEpi) software 3.01. A probability (p) <0.05 is considered as statistically significant. Results A total of 110 patients were analyzed for this study with a majority (39%) of them in the 21-30 age group. In our study, females (53%) outnumbered males (47%). Ultrasound findings in our cohort were acute appendicitis (93%), chronic appendicitis (2%) and normal appendix (5%). However, histopathology reported acute appendicitis (75%), chronic appendicitis (9%) and negative/non-specific (15%). The probability of appendicitis as predicted by Alvarado and RIPASA were 40% and 51% respectively. Definitive diagnosis of appendicitis was made in 16.4% with RIPASA whereas only 5.5% with Alvarado. When comparing the Alvarado and RIPASA scores, the sensitivity or true positive rate was higher for RIPASA (73.63%) than for Alvarado (50.55%). Conclusion There was a significant difference between the mean scores in Alvarado and RIPASA inpatients with scores suggestive of appendicitis and no appendicitis. Diagnostic accuracy was higher in RIPASA scoring compared to ALVARDO scoring. There was a significant statistical difference between the two scoring systems. When it comes to diagnosing in low-resource countries the study recommends a combination of Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems.

Accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the emergency department: an artificial intelligence-based approach.

The diagnosis of abdominal pain in emergency departments is challenging, and appendicitis is a common concern. Atypical symptoms often delay diagnosis. Although the Alvarado score aids in decision-making, its low specificity can lead to unnecessary surgeries. By leveraging machine learning, we aim to enhance diagnostic accuracy by predicting appendicitis and distinguishing it from other causes of abdominal pain in the emergency department. Data were collected from 534 patients who presented with acute abdominal pain. Patient characteristics, laboratory results, and causes of pain were recorded. Machine learning algorithms (support vector classifier, random forest classifier, gradient boosting classifier, and Gaussian naive Bayes) were used to predict the cause of pain. Model calibration was assessed using the Brier score. The mean age was 46.89 (20.3) years, with an almost equal sex distribution (49% male, 51% female). Cholecystitis was the most prevalent outcome (37.07%), followed by appendicitis (25.84%). The Gaussian naive Bayes model exhibited superior performance in terms of accuracy (95.03% 95% CI 90.44-97.83%), sensitivity (87.18% 95% CI 72.57-95.70%), and specificity (97.54% 95% CI 92.98-99.49%), while the random forest model showed a sensitivity of 79.49%, specificity of 96.72%, and accuracy of 92.55%. The gradient boosting algorithm achieved a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 89.74%, 95.90%, and 94.41%, respectively. The support vector classifier demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.74%, specificity of 92.62%, and accuracy of 91.93%. The use of modern machine learning methods aids in the accurate diagnosis of appendicitis.

Correlation Between Alvarado Score with Surgical Findings in Acute Appendicitis Patients at RSUD Dr. H. Chasan Boesoirie Ternate

Correlation Between Alvarado Score with Surgical Findings in Acute Appendicitis Patients at RSUD Dr. H. Chasan Boesoirie Ternate

Pediatric Modification For Alvarado Score: Appearance Of Patients With Apandisitis

ABSTRACT Objective: This study, with the purpose of decreasing the morbidity rate in emergency pediatric surgery clinics, evaluates the reliability of an acute appendicitis diagnosis score we define as “appearance of the patient with appendicitis (APA)”, which is a new modification of Alvarado Score (AS). Methods: One hundred eighty patients, that admitted to Van Training and Research Hospital between February 2018 and June 2018 and were consulted to pediatric surgery with acute appendicitis suspicion; were analyzed as a randomized prospective study. In the new scoring system which we define as APA, instead of a left shift of neutrophils – a state of the patients lying still in the bed, reluctant to speak, with dry lips, with tired eyes, upset and with a troubled expression at the face is placed. For all the patients, AS (AS 1-4, AS 5-6 and AS 7-10) and APA (APA 1-4, APA 5-6 and APA 7-10) scores were independently calculated as three groups and were compared to each other. Results: 180 children (108 males – 72 female) with an average age of 11 (range, 6 – 15) were included in the study. Distribution of patients in the three groups of AS was determined as 1-4: 90 (50%), AS 5-7: 48 (26.7%) and AS 8-10: 42 (23.3%) respectively. Distribution of patients with respect to APA score were as APA 1-4: 72 (40%), APA 5-7: 69 (38.3%) and APA 8-10: 39 (21.7%). Appendectomy was performed on 3 patients from the AS 1-4 group, on 15 patients from AS 5-6 group and on 33 patients from AS 7-10 group. Whereas none of the patients from the APA 1-4 group had an appendectomy, 18 patients from APA 5-6 group and 33 patients from APA 7-10 group had an appendectomy. Conclusion: By means of the APA which we define as a combination of AS and clinical judgment (CJ), the number of pediatric cases with appendicitis suspicion to be kept under observation was increased and unnecessary –too early or too late- surgical intervention incidence was decreased. Our study shows CJ and scoring systems are not alternative methods for each other and collective use of both can decrease morbidity and mortality in acute appendicitis treatment.

Frequency of surgical site infection after single dose of preoperative antibiotics in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a cross-sectional study

Background: Hyperaemic suppurative appendicitis, or uncomplicated appendicitis, often requires an appendectomy. Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is common post-surgery, and prophylactic studies show ceftriaxone and metronidazole effectively protect against most causative organisms. Methods: Ninety patients were included through non-probability convenience sampling. Acute appendicitis was diagnosed using the Alvarado score, with surgery for scores of 7 or higher. A single preoperative dose of ceftriaxone and metronidazole was administered. Follow-up visits included stitch removal on the seventh postoperative day and monitoring up to the tenth postoperative day using the Southampton criteria for wound infection. Results: Of the 90 patients, 64 (71.1%) were male and 26 (28.9%) were female. Fifty (55.6%) scored 7-8 on the Alvarado score, and 40 (44.4%) scored 9-10. Using the Southampton criteria, 5 (5.6%) developed grade I SSI. Infection rates showed no significant difference between male (3.1%) and female (11.5%) patients (p value &gt;0.05) or by Alvarado score and symptom duration. No cases of SSI beyond grade II were observed. Conclusions: Administering a single preoperative antibiotic dose effectively minimizes surgical site infection in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, demonstrating clear management advantages.

Congenital absence of the appendix in a 21-year-old male with clinical presentation of acute appendicitis: a diagnostic challenge at Prince Ali Military Hospital

Acute appendicitis is commonly associated with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and is a leading cause of emergent abdominal surgeries, carrying a significant morbidity risk. The rarity of anatomical deviations, such as appendix agenesis, complicates diagnosis and can exacerbate clinical outcomes due to diagnostic delays or mismanagement. We report the case of a 21-year-old male, who was surgically explored at prince Ali military hospital for suspected acute appendicitis based on clinical symptoms and an Alvarado score of 7. Despite strong clinical indications, imaging studies, including ultrasound and computed tomography, failed to visualize the appendix. Intraoperatively, appendix agenesis was confirmed, a finding seldom reported in medical literature. This case underscores the challenges of diagnosing congenital appendix absence and highlights the need for heightened awareness among clinicians to prevent unnecessary surgical interventions. Such awareness could potentially improve patient outcomes by sparing them from unnecessary surgical risks and complications.

Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of AIR and Alvarado Scores in Acute Appendicitis

Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of AIR and Alvarado Scores in Acute Appendicitis

Evaluating Pediatric Appendicitis Score and Alvarado Scoring System for Detecting Acute Appendicitis in Pediatric Population

Abstract Background Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical condition of children. About 1 to 10% of children presenting in surgical emergencies with acute abdomen fall within the domain of acute appendicitis. In few of these cases, clinical signs and symptoms at presentation are such that acute appendicitis is a clear diagnosis while more often it is challenging for a surgeon to make a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. In these circumstances, explorations reveal negative appendectomies and an organ with potential functions can be lost. Objective To evaluate the Pediatric Appendicitis Score and Alvarado Scoring System in Detecting Acute Appendicitis in Pediatric Population in terms of applicability, safety, and specificity in the diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis among the study group and to suggest improvements and/or modifications to increase the predictive values of Pediatric Appendicitis Score and Alvarado Scoring System, decrease the rates of false diagnosis or reduce costs. Methods a prospective cohort study that was conducted on 50 patients aged under 14 years admitted to pediatric surgery department in Ain Shams University Hospital within a period of 6 months with an expected diagnosis of Acute appendicitis. Each patient was subjected to a detailed medical history taking (with emphasis on The age, gender, duration of pain, complaint complaints ofabdominal pain and duration, fever, nausea-vomiting, diarrhea or constipation), Clinical examination:(right lower quadrant sensitivity,defense, rebound tenderness, percussion/ cough/ right lower quadrant sensitivity with jumping). Laboratory investigations:(complete blood count, the total white blood cell (WBC) and total neutrophil counts c-reactive protein ) and Ultrasound examination. Alvarado score as well as PAS were calculated for each patient . the results were then compared to the intra operative findings confirming or excluding the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Results in the study group that was 38% males and 62% females with ages ranging from 3 to 14 years .Pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) was found to significantly predict acute appendicitis in the studied patients at cutoff 5.0 with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV was 60.5%, 100%, 100% and 71.9% respectively (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Alvarado score can significantly predict acute appendicitis in the studied patients at cutoff 4.0 with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV was 79.1%, 85.7%, 84.7% and 80.4% respectively (p &amp;lt; 0.001). Conclusion The results of this study showed the higher sensitivity of Alvarado score and more specificity of the Pediatric Appendicitis score. However, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of these criteria were not considered enough to confirm the diagnosis of acute appendicitis alone. There is a need for new parameters in the scoring systems. Such as including ultrasonagraphic findings and additional laboratory investigations such as CRP.

Different Recent Scoring Systems for Better Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis

Abstract Background Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies, with a lifetime prevalence rate of approximately one in seven. Aim of the Work to compare RIPASA score, (AIR) score and Modified Alvarado Score widely and easily used scoring systems, in order to identify which one is the best in sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy, So which one leads to the most accurate diagnosis of acute Appendicitis. Patients and Methods A randomized prospective study that was conducted in Ain-Shams University Hospitals. The study started in February 2022 till the number of cases is fulfilled. 50 patients presented with RT iliac fossa tenderness. Each patient was scored by the three scoring systems using history, examination, clinical labs. Results 66.0% of cases were positive confirmed histology and (34.0%) cases were negative confirmed histology. There were highly statistically significant difference between Negative Confirmed histology and Positive Confirmed histology regarding RIPASA score, (AIR) score and Modified Alvarado Score. In this study, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) shows that the best cut off point of Modified Alvarado Score to detect Positive Modified Alvarado Score group was found &amp;gt;5 * with sensitivity of 87.88%, specificity of 64.71%, PPV of 82.9%, NPV of 73.3% and total accuracy of 77.0%. Conclusion the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score and Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score have high discriminating powers and outperform the Modified Alvarado score. They could aid in selecting patients who require timely surgery or those who require further evaluation. Both these scores have the potential to turn out into scoring systems of choice if future research can substantiate our study findings.

CLINICO-RADIOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS OFAPPENDICITIS

Background : The symptom of right lower quadrant pain had puzzled clinicians for many centuries. Appendicitis needs to be considered in the differential diagnosis of nearly every patient presenting with acute abdomen, misdiagnosis of appendicitis is significantly higher in females. Early diagnosis remains the most important goal in patients, despite use of ultrasonography, CT scanning and diagnostic laparoscopy the rate of misdiagnosis of appendicitis and rate of negative appendicectomy is significantly high. Surgical treatment is a highly successful medical intervention In this study we have attempted to find a co-relation between the efficiency of clinical diagnosis with radiological diagnosis of appendicitis. Aim and Objectives: To determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of clinical scores, ultrasonography and CT of abdomen in a case of acute appendicitis. Materials and Method: 50 patients with acute onset lower abdominal pain and diagnosed as appendicitis were evaluated by the emergency surgical team.A detailed clinical evaluation was carried out as per criteria of the three clinical scores (Alvarado, Fenyo, Ohman).The inference from each of the scores was noted.The patients underwent ultrasonography(USG) and contrast CT of the abdomen and pelvis.The findings of both these investigations and intra operative findings were noted. The specimen was sent for histopathological examination which was considered as gold standard for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Result: In this study we found that Alvarado score had the highest sensitivity among females 92.31% and also the highest NPV 66.67%.Ohmann score had the overall highest sensitivity 100% and NPV Hence, it can be used as a simple, quick and effective screening score for detection of appendicitis in a large number of patients. The score is simple to use and can also be calculated by paramedical staff. USG of the abdomen is a useful screening tool however CT had a high specificity 88.89% and PPV 97.30% and diagnostic accuracy of 88%. Conclusion: Despite the advent of various investigation modalities, a surgeons clinical acumen should never be compromised. The clinical scores and investigations should always be used as an adjunct history taking and clinical examination. Appendicitis should always be considered as a differential diagnosis in every case of acute pain abdomen.