Comparison of alvarado and ripasa scores in patients with acute appendicitis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorGökçe, Mine Esmer
dc.contributor.authorKorkmaz, İlhan
dc.contributor.authorTekin, Yusuf
dc.contributor.authorYurtbay, Sefa
dc.contributor.authorDemirtaş, Erdal
dc.contributor.authorÖzsoy, Orhan
dc.contributor.authorÖzbay, Sedat
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-24T19:49:56Z
dc.date.available2025-03-24T19:49:56Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentDüzce Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective: Acute appendicitis management delays results in perforation and increases the morbidity and mortality. Studies have reported a 20% perforation rate, and 2-30% negative laparotomy whose diagnoses are made by symptoms and physical examination. By using anamnesis, clinical signs-symptoms and inflammatory parameters to reduce the diagnosis time, complications, and morbidity-mortality of AA, various scoring methods have been developed. The first scoring system defined for this purpose is Alvarado scoring system. The RIPASA scoring system was developed for patients in Asia. In this study, we aimed to determine which scoring is more suitable for our population by comparing Alvarado and RIPASA scoring methods in patients who underwent an appendectomy.Method: The Alvarado and RIPASA scores of each patient were calculated by the scoring system parameters after the 182 patient files were analyzed retrospectively. At cut-off value of 7.5 for RIPASA score and 7 for Alvarado score, patients were divided into high and low-risk groups. The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated and the two scoring systems' effectivity were compared with Chi-square and area under curve analysis.Results: According to the histological examination 42(23%) patients were not considered as acute appendicitis. RİPASA scoring systems high-risk group classification was better by predicting the acute appendicitis patients (p = 0.001, p <0.05). The area under the curve for RIPASA score calculated as 0.738 and this is statistically significant (p = 0.001; p <0.05). The result was better then the Alvarado AUC score (0,633). Alvarado scoring systems' negative predictive value was higher than the RİPASA score, respectively (58,14%, 32.56%).Conclusions: It is beneficial to use the RIPASA scoring system for patients in our region to reduce the rate of negative laparotomy and unnecessary surgical procedures in patients admitted to emergency services with the suspicion of acute appendicitis.
dc.identifier.doi10.7197/cmj.828748
dc.identifier.endpage506
dc.identifier.issn1305-0028
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.startpage500
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.7197/cmj.828748
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/19391
dc.identifier.volume42
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSivas Cumhuriyet University
dc.relation.ispartofCumhuriyet Tıp Dergisi
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_DergiPark_20250324
dc.subjectacute appendicitis|RİPASA SCORE|ALVARADO SCORE
dc.titleComparison of alvarado and ripasa scores in patients with acute appendicitis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Öksüz Yayınlar Koleksiyonu