[Validation of a diagnostic scoring system (Ohmann score) in acute appendicitis]

Clinical Importance of the Heel Drop Test and a New Clinical Score for Adult Appendicitis

Objective

We tried to evaluate the accuracy of the heel drop test in patients with suspected appendicitis and tried to develop a new clinical score, which incorporates the heel drop test and other parameters, for the diagnosis of this condition.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational study on adult patients with suspected appendicitis at two academic urban emergency departments between January and August 2015. The predictive characteristics of each parameter, along with heel drop test results were calculated. A composite score was generated by logistic regression analysis. The performance of the generated score was compared to that of the Alvarado score.

Results

Of the 292 enrolled patients, 165 (56.5%) had acute appendicitis. The heel drop test had a higher predictive value than rebound tenderness. Variables and their points included in the new (MESH) score were pain migration (2), elevated white blood cell (WBC) >10,000/μL (3), shift to left (2), and positive heel drop test (3). The MESH score had a higher AUC than the Alvarado score (0.805 vs. 0.701). Scores of 5 and 11 were chosen as cut-off values; a MESH score ≥5 compared to an Alvarado score ≥5, and a MESH score ≥8 compared to an Alvarado score ≥7 showed better performance in diagnosing appendicitis.

Conclusion

MESH (migration, elevated WBC, shift to left, and heel drop test) is a simple clinical scoring system for assessing patients with suspected appendicitis and is more accurate than the Alvarado score. Further validation studies are needed.

The evaluation of the validity of Alvarado, Eskelinen, Lintula and Ohmann scoring systems in diagnosing acute appendicitis in children

PURPOSE

To show whether Alvarado, Eskelinen, Lintula and Ohmann scoring systems have predictive values in diagnosing acute appendicitis in children.

METHODS

Sixty patients with suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively evaluated. Alvarado, Eskelinen, Lintula and Ohmann scores were calculated separately for each patient at the time of admission. The specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values of the scores were calculated. The predictive value of the scores was evaluated with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the consistency among the scores by Kappa test.

RESULTS

Twenty of the patients were female (33.3 %). The mean age of the patients was 9.9 years (3-16 years). Forty two patients were operated and appendectomies were performed with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The area under the ROC curve showed that the scores had no predictive value in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Kappa test showed that agreement between the scores was not good.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity and specificity of the four scoring systems were not sufficient enough in diagnosing acute appendicitis in our patient group. We concluded that the most important factor affecting the decision for surgery in suspected acute appendicitis is the surgeon's experience combined with physical findings of repeated clinical examinations.

Diagnostic score in acute appendicitis. Validation of a diagnostic score (Lintula score) for adults with suspected appendicitis

PURPOSE

We have previously constructed and validated a diagnostic score to reduce the negative appendicectomy rate in children with suspected appendicitis. The purpose of this prospective study was to validate the diagnostic score (Lintula score) in adults with suspected appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 177 patients with suspected appendicitis were randomly assigned to either the appendicitis-score-group (n = 96) or the no-score-group (n = 81). The management decision was based on the use of the diagnostic scoring system in the appendicitis-score-group and on a sole clinical assessment in the no-score-group. The main diagnostic performance parameters were the diagnostic accuracy, specificity and sensitivity, the positive and negative predictive values, and the rate of negative appendicectomies.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the appendicitis-score-group and the no-score-group in the diagnostic accuracy (92% vs. 91%; P = NS) and the negative appendicectomy rate (13% vs. 16%). Following repeated clinical examination, the diagnostic accuracy improved in both groups, 74% vs. 92% in the appendicitis-score-group (P = 0.01), and 84% vs. 91% in the no-score-group (P = 0.01). The application of the Lintula score yielded a higher positive predictive value (98% vs. 84%; P = 0.02) and specificity (98% vs. 84%; P = 0.028), but a lower negative predictive value (86% vs. 100%; P = 0.016) and sensitivity (87% vs. 100%; P = 0.022) than unaided clinical examination in the no-score-group. There were no differences in terms of the length of hospital stay, rate of complications and appendiceal histology between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of the acute appendicitis score developed for paediatric patients seems to provide some benefits compared to an unaided clinical diagnosis and may, thus, be a useful diagnostic tool for general surgeons.

Which children could benefit from additional diagnostic tools in case of suspected appendicitis?

BACKGROUND

New diagnostic tools such as ultrasound scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and diagnostic laparoscopy, have become available for children with suspected appendicitis but should be reserved for equivocal cases. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to identify this subgroup of children.

METHODS

Patients from 2 different periods (period 1, 99 consecutive children [group 1] and period 2, 62 consecutive children [group 2] with suspected appendicitis) were prospectively evaluated. Variables predicting appendicitis were obtained from group 1. By means of a regression analysis, a scoring system was created and applied to the patients of group 2. Missed appendicitis and negative appendectomy rates obtained by clinical practice were compared with the results that would have been accomplished based on the scoring system. Thereafter, the scoring system was externally validated in a group of children presented at another hospital (group 3, n = 114).

RESULTS

The variables, leukocyte count > or = 10.10(9)/L (2 points); rebound tenderness (2 points); and temperature > or = 38 degrees C (1 point) correlated significantly with appendicitis. The scoring system was used to categorize patients into 3 groups: appendicitis unlikely, doubtful appendicitis, and suspected appendicitis. The specificity and sensitivity of the scoring system were, respectively, 85% and 89%. Applying the scoring system would lead to comparable negative appendectomy rates of 8% versus 6% using clinical judgement and a comparable number of performed laparoscopies (26% v 31%). However, it could lead to a lower missed appendicitis rate (1% v 6%) and a lower perforation rate (0% v 11%). External validation showed comparable performed laparoscopies (32%) and missed appendicitis (2%) rates but a higher negative appendectomy rate (19%), probably owing to a lower percentage of appendicitis in hospital (2, 47%) compared with hospital (1, 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Children can be observed if leukocyte count is less than 10.10(9)/L and rebound tenderness is absent; a diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed if one of these is present, and if both are present one could perform an appendectomy.

Prospective evaluation of diagnostic modalities in suspected acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate different diagnostic modalities routinely employed in a district hospital.

METHOD

Four hundred subsequent patients presenting with acute abdominal pain were included over a period of 18 months. Patient characteristics, diagnostic work-up, intraoperative findings, histology and clinical outcome were documented. Rectal temperature, white cell count (WCC), C-reactive protein (CRP), ultrasonography (US) and Ohmann score were analysed with relation to diagnostic value.

RESULTS

Negative appendicectomy rate and negative laparotomy rate on the day of admission were 22% and 21%, respectively. Sensitivity was highest for WCC and CRP (0.82 and 0.85) but US showed highest values for specificity (0.92), accuracy (0.85) and odds ratio (13.06). No patient with an Ohmann score below 6.5 suffered from acute appendicitis. With regard to different levels of training in US, experienced surgeons and radiologists had best values for specificity (1.00 and 0.98) and accuracy (0.90 and 0.94). Surprisingly, less-experienced sonographers also achieved good results with regard to specificity (up to 0.96) and positive predictive value (up to 0.89).

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis remains insufficient, with an unacceptable high rate of unnecessary operations. Only the promotion of routine ultrasonography might contribute to an improvement in the near future.