medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Cirujano General

ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Send manuscript
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2012; 34 (2)

Diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA Score for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparative analysis with the modified Alvarado Score

Reyes-García N, Zaldívar-Ramírez FR, Cruz-Martínez R, Sandoval-Martínez MD, Gutiérrez-Banda CA, Athié-Gutiérrez C
Full text How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 101-106
PDF size: 67.30 Kb.


Key words:

Acute appendicitis, modified Alvarado score, RIPASA score.

ABSTRACT

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.


REFERENCES

  1. Varadhan KK, Humes DJ, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. World J Surg 2010; 34: 199-209.

  2. Humes DJ, Simpson J. Clinical presentation of acute appendicitis: clinical signs–laboratory findings–clinical scores, Alvarado score and derivate scores. Imaging of acute appendicitis in adults and children. Medical Radiology 2011: 13-21. DOI: 10.1007/174_2011_211.

  3. Sieren LM, Collins JN, Weireter LJ, Britt RC, Reed SF, Novosel TJ, et al. The incidence of benign and malignant neoplasia presenting as acute appendicitis. Am Surg 2010; 76: 808-811.

  4. Ilves I, Paajanen HE, Herzig KH, Fagerström A, Miettinen PJ. Changing Incidence of Acute Appendicitis and Nonspecific Abdominal Pain Between 1987 and 2007 in Finland. World J Surg 2011; 35: 731-738.

  5. Thuijls G, Derikx JP, Prakken FJ, Huisman B, van Bijnen Ing AA, van Heurn EL, et al. A pilot study on potential new plasma markers for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med 2011; 29: 256-260.

  6. Athié G, Guízar B. Apendicitis. En: Tratado de Cirugía General. 2a edición. Editorial El Manual Moderno, México. 2008: 753-61.

  7. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ. Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 2006; 76: 71-74.

  8. Laméris W, Van Randen A, Go PM, Bouma WH, Donkervoort SC, Bossuyt PM, et al. Single and combined diagnostic value of clinical features and laboratory tests in acute appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 2009; 16: 835-842.

  9. Gendel I, Gutermacher M, Buklan G, Lazar L, Kidron D, Paran H, et al. Relative value of clinical, laboratory and imaging tools in diagnosing pediatric acute appendicitis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2011; 21: 229-233.

  10. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Pattel MB, Cochran C, Dodd LG, DeLong DM, et al. Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 2010; 254: 460-468.

  11. Filiz AI, Aladag H, Akin ML, Sucullu I, Kurt Y, Yucel E, et al. The role of d-lactate in differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Investigat Surg 2010; 23: 218-223.

  12. Chong CF, Thien A, Mackie AJ, Tin AS, Tripathi S, Ahmad MA, et al. Comparison of RIPASA and Alvarado scores for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Singapore Med J 2011; 52: 340-345.

  13. Chong CF, Adi MI, Thien A, Suyoi A, Mackie AJ, Tin AS, et al. Development of the RIPASA score: a new appendicitis scoring system for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Singapore Med J 2010; 51: 220-225.

  14. Klabtawee W, Saensak W, Khetsoongnern A, Piriyasupong T. Accuracy of RIPASA and modified RIPASA score comparing with Alvarado score for diagnosis of acute appendicitis and complication of acute appendicitis. Khon Kaen Medical Journal 2011; 35: 38-47.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Cir Gen. 2012;34