How much Reliable Is Alvarado Scoring System in Reducing Negative Appendectomy?

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.

Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country

Background

Alvarado score is the most widely used scoring system for diagnosing acute appendicitis, globally. There have been concerns regarding the diagnostic accuracy of this score as it was shown to have lower sensitivity in certain populations like Blacks and Asians. Despite its wide clinical use in the Ethiopian set up, the diagnostic accuracy of this score remained largely unexamined in this population.

Methodology

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted and all adult patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and evaluated with a clinical impression of acute appendicitis were enrolled in the study. Data was collected by trained surgical residents over a period of six months (August 2019- January 2020) and analysed using SPSS version 25.

Results

A total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study among whom two thirds were males. The majority of the study participants (61.7%) had an Alvarado score of ≥7 while almost a quarter of them had a score of <4. The mean Alvarado score in this study was 7 ± 1.8 whereas the median and the mode were 7 and 9 respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Alvarado score were 99.1%, 55.6%, 98.2% and 62.5% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of this score was superior in males compared to females (99.3% vs 97.6% and 80% vs 25%). A score of ≥5 was found to have a sensitivity of 98.4%.

Conclusion

Alvarado score was found to have good sensitivity and positive predictive value in this study. A score of ≥5 can be used to "rule in" the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Hence, the use of Alvarado score's in the Ethiopian setup is to be encouraged.

The Rate of Negative Appendicectomy and Perforated Appendicitis As Quality Indicators of the General Surgical Service in a District General Hospital in Cavan, Republic of Ireland

Introduction Appendicitis is a common surgical condition that can be difficult to diagnose due to its varied clinical presentations. Surgical removal of the inflamed appendix is often necessary, and the appendix is sent for histopathological assessment to confirm the diagnosis. However, in some cases, the analysis may return a negative result for acute inflammation, known as a negative appendicectomy (NA). The definition of NA varies among experts. While negative appendicectomies are not ideal, they are accepted by surgeons to reduce the rate of perforated appendicitis, which can have severe consequences for patients. A study was conducted to investigate the rates of negative appendicectomies and their impact at a local district general hospital in Cavan, Republic of Ireland. Methods The study was conducted retrospectively from January 2014 to December 2019 on patients who were admitted with suspected appendicitis and underwent appendicectomy for appendicitis, regardless of age and sex. The researchers excluded patients who underwent elective, interval, and incidental appendicectomies. Data were collected on patient demographics, duration of symptoms prior to presentation, the intraoperative appearance of the appendix, and the histology results of the appendix specimens. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were used for data analysis with the help of IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 26. Results The study retrospectively reviewed 876 patients who underwent an appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis between January 2014 and December 2019. The age distribution of patients was non-uniform, with 72% presenting before the third decade. The overall perforated appendicitis rate was 7.08%, and the overall negative appendicectomy (NA) rate was 21.3%. A subset analysis showed a statistically significant lower NA rate in females than in males. The NA rate decreased significantly over time and has been sustained since 2014 at around 10%, which is consistent with other published studies. The majority of the histology findings were uncomplicated appendicitis. Discussion This article discusses the challenges of diagnosing appendicitis and the need to reduce unnecessary surgeries. Laparoscopic appendectomy is the standard treatment, with an average cost of £2222.53 per patient in the UK. However, patients with negative appendicectomies (NA) have longer hospital stays and higher morbidity than uncomplicated cases, making it crucial to reduce unnecessary surgeries. The clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is not always straightforward, and the rate of perforated appendicitis increases with a longer duration of symptoms, particularly pain. The selective use of imaging in suspected appendicitis could reduce NA rates, but a statistical difference has not been proven. Scoring systems like the Alvarado score have limitations and cannot be relied upon alone. Retrospective studies have limitations, and biases and confounding variables must be considered. Conclusion The study found that a thorough investigation of patients, particularly with preoperative imaging, can decrease the rate of unnecessary appendectomies without increasing the rate of perforation. This could save costs and reduce harm to patients.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado scoring system relative to histopathological diagnosis for acute appendicitis: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a surgical emergency that requires prompt diagnosis and suitable management. It may lead to complications resulting in mortality. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system (ASS) for acute appendicitis concerning histopathological data.

Methodology

About 120 patients were selected for this study consisting of 96 males and 24 females age between 20 and 60. Alvarado scoring system is calculated for each patient after collecting data about demographics, laboratory findings, and clinical examination. Then, we compared it with histopathological diagnosis taking it as a gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. SPSS version 20 was used for analyzing the data.

Results

About 120 patients were included in our study. The male to female ratio was 3:1. Sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% and 41% respectively. While PPV and NPV were 85% and 41% respectively. The negative appendectomy rate was 21%. The area under the curve for receiving operating characteristics is 0.628.

Conclusion

ASS is a useful diagnostic tool regarding sensitivity and positive predictive value, especially in developing countries. It is cheap, reliable, and can be easily applied.

•

We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Alvarado scoring system (ASS) for acute appendicitis.

•

Sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% and 41%.

•

While PPV and NPV were 85% and 41% respectively.

Value of Alvarado scoring system in diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

•

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen in surgical patients.

•

Various scoring systems are used for decision making in appendicitis.

•

Alvarado score remains the most popular scoring system.

[Diagnostic and treatment approaches for acute appendicitis in the Russian Federation. Results of the all-Russian survey]

OBJECTIVE

To improve treatment outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis (AA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An internet survey was performed. Questionnaire consisted of 15 questions concerning diagnosis and treatment of AA: application of prognostic scales, incidence and technical aspects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative management, compliance with international and national clinical guidelines. A total of 690 questionnaires were received and analyzed (3.67% of all surgeons in the Russian Federation).

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of respondents use at least one prognostic scale. The vast majority of surgeons (92%) use antibiotic prophylaxis. Almost half of respondents place trocars in the triangulation position (44%), one third of surgeons ligate the mesentery of the appendix (35%), most respondents perform mesoappendectomy (60%) with monopolar and bipolar cautery. Forty-five percent of all respondents do not invert the appendix stump. Significant number of respondents use abdominal drainage routinely. Only 3.5% of surgeons use multimodal postoperative analgesia. Less than 22% of patients are operated under low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Standardization of surgical technique and perioperative approaches including those specified in the guidelines is absent. We also found insufficient awareness of surgeons about international and national clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This study may be useful for standardizing treatment approaches, choosing the best practice, popularizing and improving of current clinical guidelines.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in the Setting of Clinical Prediction Rules

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most frequent surgical entity in the emergency department, but its correct diagnosis remains challenging. To improve diagnosis, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been created to establish objective scores for the probability of suffering AA. In this study, we establish scores indicating whether laparoscopy would be superior to clinical observation or repeat diagnostic test.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with 433 patients submitted to surgery for suspected AA using a laparoscopic approach. The Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, and adult appendicitis score scales were applied in each case to establish a high, medium, or low probability of suffering AA.

RESULTS

Of the 433 patients analyzed, 381 (88.0%) had AA. Twelve (2.8%) were converted to open surgery, and complications were observed in 54 (12.5%) cases. The CPRs studied showed statistically significant differences between AA and negative appendectomies. However, in patients with intermediate probability scores, the diagnostic accuracy of the CPRs evaluated was not adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can serve as a diagnostic tool for patients with intermediate AA probability scores because of its low associated morbidity and mortality and because it affords a direct diagnosis of the problem, allowing determination of the appropriate treatment.