Modified Alvarado score versus Tzanaki’s Score in diagnosing acute appendicitis: An observational study

Background: Appendix is a blind muscular tube derived from the midgut. During the embryogenic development, in the 6th week appendix and cecum appear as out pouching from midguts caudal limb. Acute appendicitis is one the most common diagnosis made whenever patient presents with right illac fossa pain and mostly encountered in young and middle-aged individuals. The diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis depend on clinical presentation, that is, clinical signs and symptoms. The most common presentations in these cases have abdominal pain along with fever, anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. Various Scoring systems are developed to diagnose acute appendicitis based mainly on the presenting signs and symptoms, but widely none of them are used as an uniform scoring system. Aims and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess effectiveness and comparison of modified Alvarado score and Tzanaki’s Score in the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was done in department of General Surgery JLN Medical College Hospital, Ajmer which included 200 patients presenting with the signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis, clinically. During admission the patients were evaluated by Modified Alvarado score and Tzanaki’s Score and final surgical decision was taken by the treating surgeon. Finally, the scores were compared with the histopathological examination of the surgically operated specimen. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of Modified Alvarado Score was 84.26% and 72.7%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 96.15% and negative predictive value of 36.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of Tzanaki’s score was 88.2% and 72.7%, respectively, with a positive predictive value of 96.31% and negative predictive value of 43.24%. The diagnostic accuracy of Alvarado score was 83% and that of Tzanaki’s score was 86.5%. Conclusions: Our study showed that Modified Alvarado scoring system is a simple tool with limited features for bedside diagnosis of acute appendicitis, but its effectiveness is not as good as that of Tzanaki’s scoring system.

Usefulness of Modified Alvarado Score in Acute Appendicitis Incorporating Ultrasound.

Acute appendicitis affects human beings irrespective of age, nationality and region. Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical cause of emergency laparotomy. Considering the difficulties and challenges involved in accurate clinical diagnosis, there is a need for a validated, objective protocol for enabling the diagnosis. This study was carried out to validate the modified Alvarado score (MASS) and correlate with ultrasound and post-operative histopathological examination.METHODSThis cohort study was carried out among 100 patients who were suspected with acute appendicitis. Upon clinical evaluation and ultrasound evaluation, Modified Alvarado Score was computed, and patients were taken up for laparotomy/ laparoscopic surgery. The resected specimens were sent for histopathological examination.RESULTSMajority of the participants had a score >7 (74%) of which 51 were males, 21 were females and two were children. Ultrasound detected positive cases in 90% of the participants, while acute appendicitis by histopathology was present in 54% of the participants. There was a statistically significant correlation with Modified Alvarado score (p<0.0001). Negative appendicectomy was prevalent in 21% of the participants.CONCLUSIONSModified Alvarado Scoring system is ideal for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis since it is simple to use, easy to apply and relies only on history, clinical examination and basic lab investigations.

Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in comparison with the Alvarado score

Background: Different scoring systems have been created to increase diagnostic accuracy, and they are inexpensive, non-invasive, and easy to use and reproduce. The modified Alvarado score is widely used in emergency services. The Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score was formulated in 2010 and has greater sensitivity and specificity. The aim of our article was to compare the usefulness of modified RIPASA score and Alvarado score in the diagnosis of patients with abdominal pain and suspected acute appendicitis.Methods: A prospective study was undertaken among 100 cases presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis, conducted at the Narayana medical college hospital, Nellore. The questionnaires used for the evaluation process were applied to the patients suspected of having appendicitis.Results: A total of 100 patients, 95% underwent laparoscopic procedure. The cut-off threshold point of the Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 52%. The positive predictive value was 65%. The cut-off threshold point of the modified RIPASA score was set at 7.5, which yielded 90% sensitivity and 72% specificity. The positive predictive value was 89% and the NPV was 30%.Conclusions: On comparing both the scores, sensitivity and specificity was higher for modified RIPASA score. The positive predictive value was higher for the Alvarado and negative predictive value was higher for RIPASA score. Bothe p values were statistically significant.

Clinical Relevance of Modified Alvarado Score in Acute Appendicitis in Present Scenario

Introduction: Appendix is surely, the most commonlyharvested organ of the body. On looking up the literature,we found, that the negative appendectomy rates have beenconsistently maintained all through these years. Negativeappendectomy not only increases economic burden on healthcare facilities of a developing country like India, but alsohas a negative impact on the overall health of the patient.The following study was therefore, taken up to evaluate thediagnostic accuracy of the Modified Alvarado scoring systemand its ultimate effect on mortality and morbidity of the patient.Though this is an old score, but we restudied it, to revalidateas well as to promote the use of this simple, economicaland objective clinical score which actually uses establishedclinical methods, important for residents training program, toreach the diagnosis instead of the costly radiological methods.Material and methods: 50 patients presenting with thelower quadrant abdominal pain and fulfilling the inclusioncriteria were selected randomly and included in the study.Modified Alvarado Score was calculated for each one ofthem. Confirmation of the diagnosis was done after thehistopathological examination of appendix.Results: Modified Alvarado Score >7 was found in 80% (i.e.82.75% of males and 76.19% of females) of patients withappendicitis. In addition to these findings, we also got exactinformation about the age and sex distribution along withthe most common presenting complaint, the postoperativecomplications and the need for post operative stay inappendicitis patients.Conclusion: Modified Alvarado Score is a fast, simple,noninvasive, repeatable and highly economical score. Whenapplied purposefully and objectively, it can prevent delayin surgeries and hence complications as well as can reducenegative appendectomies.

Modified Alvarado's Score incorporating C-reactive protein for Acute Appendicitis

Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the commonest surgical conditions requiring emergency appendectomy. The diagnosis is usually suspected clinically and confirmed on either ultrasound or Computed tomography. The aim of our study is to improve the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis and reduce the rate of negative appendectomy. We have modified the Alvarado’s score by incorporating C- reactive protein and deleting two of its components (leukocyte shift to left and migration of pain from umbilical region to right iliac fossa). Methods: We successfully used this scoring system on a sample size of 100 patients. Out of 100 patients, diagnosis was confirmed on histopathological examination in 76 patients. Neutrophilic infiltration of the muscularis layer was considered as the diagnostic criteria for acute appendicitis. Ten patients were diagnosed only on CECT abdomen as Appendicular lump. These patients were not operated. Alternate diagnoses were made in twelve patients with MAS score of 5 or less and in two patients with MAS score of more than 6. Results: On statistical analysis, the result showed that the MAS is a very specific (85.7%) and highly sensitive (95.3%) in detecting Acute Appendicitis, taking Histopathology or CT as gold standard test. While, the positive predictive value is 97.6%, negative predictive value is only 75%. Conclusions: This means that it is difficult to rule out acute appendicitis in patients with lower scores. However, for such patients further investigations can be done to reach to a final diagnosis.

Evaluation of modified Alvarado scoring system and RIPASA scoring system as diagnostic tools of acute appendicitis / 世界急诊医学杂志（英文）

@#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 specifically for Asian populations. The aim of this study was to compare the modified 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 modified Alvarado score was set at 7.0, which yielded a sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity 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% specificity. The PPV was 97.2% and the NPV was 78.5%. The predicted negative appendectomy rates were 10.7% and 2.2% for the modified 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 significant 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 specificity than the modified Alvarado scoring system in Asian populations. It consists of 14 clinical parameters that can be obtained from a good patient history, clinical examination and laboratory investigations. The RIPASA scoring system is more accurate and specific than the modified Alvarado scoring system for Kuwait population.

Precisión diagnóstica de la escala RIPASA para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda: análisis comparativo con la escala de Alvarado modificada / Diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA Score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparative analysis with the modified Alvarado Score

Objetivo: Evaluar en forma comparativa la escala de Alvarado modificada y la escala RIPASA, para conocer su utilidad en el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda en un hospital de tercer nivel de atención del sector salud. Sede: Hospital General de México. Diseño: Estudio prospectivo, transversal, comparativo y observacional. Análisis estadístico: Medidas de tendencia central, análisis para pruebas diagnósticas (sensibilidad, especificidad, valores predictivos, likelihood ratio o coeficiente de probabilidad) y curva ROC. Pacientes y métodos: De acuerdo al cálculo de tamaño de muestra se estudiaron 70 pacientes, que ingresaron al Servicio de Urgencias del Hospital General de México con síndrome doloroso abdominal sugestivo de apendicitis aguda, se les realizaron estudios de laboratorio y gabinete. Aplicando en forma simultánea las escalas de Alvarado modificada y la RIPASA. Se anotaron hallazgos clínicos, quirúrgicos e histopatológicos del apéndice. Resultados: La escala de Alvarado presentó una sensibilidad de 89.5% y especificidad de 69.2%, la RIPASA presentó una sensibilidad de 91.2% y especificidad de 84.6%. El área bajo la curva ROC de la escala RIPASA fue de 0.93, superior a la de Alvarado de 0.89. Si la decisión quirúrgica se hubiera realizado con base en la escala de Alvarado, las apendicectomías negativas se hubieran presentado en 18.3% pacientes, y con RIPASA disminuirían a 15.7%. Conclusiones: Ambas escalas presentaron buena sensibilidad para el diagnóstico de apendicitis aguda. La escala RIPASA presentó mejor especificidad y valores predictivos, con menor probabilidad de apendicectomías negativas. La escala RIPASA presenta mayor exactitud diagnóstica que la de Alvarado.

Objective: To assess comparatively the Modified Alvarado and the RIPASA scores, to know their usefulness in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in a third level health care hospital. Setting: General Hospital of Mexico. Design: Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative, and observational study. Statistical analysis: Central Tendency Measures, analyses for diagnostic tests (specificity, sensitivity, predictive values, likelihood ratio) and ROC curve. Patients and methods: According to the established sample size, we studied 70 patients that were admitted at the Emergency Ward of the General Hospital of Mexico, with abdominal pain syndrome suggestive of acute appendicitis. Laboratory and imaging studies were performed. The modified Alvarado and RIPASA scores were applied simultaneously. Clinical, surgical, and histopathological findings were recorded. Results: The Alvarado score presented a sensitivity of 89.5% and a specificity of 69.2%, whereas RIPASA presented a sensitivity of 91.2% and specificity of 84.6%. The area under the ROC curve for the RIPASA score was 0.93, higher than that of the Alvarado with 0.89. If surgical decision had been based on the Alvarado score, negative appendicectomies would have been encountered in 18.3% of patients, and with RIPASA they would have diminished to 15.7%. Conclusions: Both scores presented a good sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. RIPASA presented better specificity and predictive values, with a lower likelihood of negative appendicectomies. The RIPASA score had a better diagnostic accuracy than the Alvarado score.