Which appendicitis scoring system is most suitable for pregnant patients? A comparison of nine different systems.


Journal

World journal of emergency surgery : WJES
ISSN: 1749-7922
Titre abrégé: World J Emerg Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266603

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 05 2020
Historique:
received: 26 03 2020
accepted: 21 04 2020
entrez: 20 5 2020
pubmed: 20 5 2020
medline: 9 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Acute appendicitis is the most common non-gynecological emergency during pregnancy. The diagnosis of appendicitis during pregnancy is challenging due to changes in both physiological and laboratory variables. Guidelines suggest patients with suspected acute appendicitis should be stratified based on clinical scoring systems, to optimize the use of diagnostic imaging and prevent unnecessary surgery. Surgeons require additional information beyond that provided by imaging studies before deciding upon exploratory laparoscopy in patients with a high suspicion of appendicitis. Various scoring methods have been evaluated for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. However, there is no consensus on a method to use during pregnancy, and a detailed comparison of existing scoring methods for this purpose has not yet been conducted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the most popular scoring systems applied to diagnose acute appendicitis during pregnancy. This single-center retrospective study included 79 pregnant patients who were admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain between May 2014 and May 2019. The patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent an appendectomy. As a control group, the study also included 79 non-pregnant patients who underwent appendectomy within the last 1.5 years. To ensure that the groups were similar, women in the case group were stratified according to age, and the proportions of women in the strata were determined. The women in the control group were similarly stratified. Women were randomly selected from the strata to prevent bias. Both laboratory and examination findings required for each scoring method were obtained and assessed separately for each patient. Negative appendectomy rates were evaluated according to pathology results. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. A p value < 0.05 was considered to indicate significance. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to identify the best threshold value and to assess the performance of the test scores in terms of diagnosing appendicitis. Among all scoring systems, the Tzanakis score was most efficacious at predicting appendicitis in non-pregnant women. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Tzanakis score was 90.6%, whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) was 46.7%. The RIPASA score performed the best among the scoring systems in pregnant women. It was associated with a PPV of 94.40%, NPV of 44%, and sensitivity and specificity of 78.46% and 78.57%, respectively. Although the RIPASA score can be used to efficaciously diagnose acute appendicitis in pregnant women, a specific scoring system is needed for diagnosis during the gestation period.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis is the most common non-gynecological emergency during pregnancy. The diagnosis of appendicitis during pregnancy is challenging due to changes in both physiological and laboratory variables. Guidelines suggest patients with suspected acute appendicitis should be stratified based on clinical scoring systems, to optimize the use of diagnostic imaging and prevent unnecessary surgery. Surgeons require additional information beyond that provided by imaging studies before deciding upon exploratory laparoscopy in patients with a high suspicion of appendicitis. Various scoring methods have been evaluated for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. However, there is no consensus on a method to use during pregnancy, and a detailed comparison of existing scoring methods for this purpose has not yet been conducted. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the most popular scoring systems applied to diagnose acute appendicitis during pregnancy.
METHODS
This single-center retrospective study included 79 pregnant patients who were admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain between May 2014 and May 2019. The patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent an appendectomy. As a control group, the study also included 79 non-pregnant patients who underwent appendectomy within the last 1.5 years. To ensure that the groups were similar, women in the case group were stratified according to age, and the proportions of women in the strata were determined. The women in the control group were similarly stratified. Women were randomly selected from the strata to prevent bias. Both laboratory and examination findings required for each scoring method were obtained and assessed separately for each patient. Negative appendectomy rates were evaluated according to pathology results. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test. A p value < 0.05 was considered to indicate significance. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was used to identify the best threshold value and to assess the performance of the test scores in terms of diagnosing appendicitis.
RESULTS
Among all scoring systems, the Tzanakis score was most efficacious at predicting appendicitis in non-pregnant women. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the Tzanakis score was 90.6%, whereas the negative predictive value (NPV) was 46.7%. The RIPASA score performed the best among the scoring systems in pregnant women. It was associated with a PPV of 94.40%, NPV of 44%, and sensitivity and specificity of 78.46% and 78.57%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Although the RIPASA score can be used to efficaciously diagnose acute appendicitis in pregnant women, a specific scoring system is needed for diagnosis during the gestation period.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32423408
doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00310-7
pii: 10.1186/s13017-020-00310-7
pmc: PMC7236497
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

34

Références

J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2007 Apr;17(2):186-90
pubmed: 17484645
JAMA. 2001 Oct 10;286(14):1748-53
pubmed: 11594900
Am J Surg. 2010 Sep;200(3):363-7
pubmed: 20800715
Int J Womens Health. 2019 Feb 08;11:119-134
pubmed: 30804686
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):345.e1-6
pubmed: 25291255
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2010 Jun;395(5):495-500
pubmed: 20379739
Surg Clin North Am. 1995 Feb;75(1):15-31
pubmed: 7855715
Ann Emerg Med. 1986 May;15(5):557-64
pubmed: 3963537
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;130(4):e210-e216
pubmed: 28937575
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Jan;196(1):4-12
pubmed: 21178041
Eur J Surg. 1997 Nov;163(11):831-8
pubmed: 9414043
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Jan;136(1):16-9
pubmed: 17275981
Can Fam Physician. 2004 Mar;50:355-7
pubmed: 15318670
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 25;100(24):13761-6
pubmed: 14610281
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014 Dec;24(12):894-7
pubmed: 25523723
J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Jul;19(4):362-4
pubmed: 15512331
World J Surg. 2007 Jan;31(1):86-92
pubmed: 17180556
Radiographics. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):317-34
pubmed: 22411935
Ann Surg. 2019 Dec;270(6):1028-1040
pubmed: 30720508
Obstet Gynecol. 1977 Jul;50(1):40-4
pubmed: 876520
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2004 Jun;389(3):213-8
pubmed: 14624293
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2018 Nov;24(6):545-551
pubmed: 30516254
Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6):1394-9
pubmed: 25171885
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Mar;204(3):519-26
pubmed: 25714280
Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2015 Jul-Sep;28(3):171-3
pubmed: 26537139
ANZ J Surg. 2013 Oct;83(10):748-52
pubmed: 23351046
Br J Surg. 2015 Jul;102(8):979-90
pubmed: 25963411
Br J Surg. 2018 Jul;105(8):933-945
pubmed: 29902346
Am J Surg. 2009 Dec;198(6):753-8
pubmed: 19969125
Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul 26;11:281-287
pubmed: 30100748
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Oct;205(4):534-40
pubmed: 17903726
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016 Aug;31(8):1475-81
pubmed: 27072934
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2015 Mar-Apr;61(2):170-7
pubmed: 26107368
Eur J Surg. 1995 Apr;161(4):273-81
pubmed: 7612771
World J Emerg Surg. 2018 Apr 16;13:19
pubmed: 29686725
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007 Mar;131(1):4-12
pubmed: 16982130
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Jun;81(3):245-7
pubmed: 12767564
World J Surg. 2005 Sep;29(9):1151-6, discussion 1157
pubmed: 16088420

Auteurs

Baris Mantoglu (B)

Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University Educating and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey. barismantoglu@gmail.com.tr.

Emre Gonullu (E)

Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University Educating and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey.

Yesim Akdeniz (Y)

Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University Educating and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey.

Merve Yigit (M)

Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University Educating and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey.

Necattin Firat (N)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Emrah Akin (E)

Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University Educating and Research Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey.

Fatih Altintoprak (F)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of General Surgery, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Unal Erkorkmaz (U)

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Biostatistics, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH