Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4

An investigation into the factors predicting acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis

Pages
434–442
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This approach will also contribute to reducing the negative appendectomy and perforation rates.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: To investigate the factors predicting acute appendicitis (AAp) and perforated AAp in patients who underwent surgery with a preliminary diagnosis of AAp.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODS: Between May 2009 and December 2018, 1316 patients underwent appendectomy with a presumed diagnosis of AAp.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This approach will also contribute to reducing the negative appendectomy and perforation rates.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

BACKGROUND: To investigate the factors predicting acute appendicitis (AAp) and perforated AAp in patients who underwent surgery with a preliminary diagnosis of AAp. METHODS: Between May 2009 and December 2018, 1316 patients underwent appendectomy with a presumed diagnosis of AAp. To investigate the factors predicting AAp, patients were divided into two groups considering the histopathological presence of inflammatory changes in the appendix: AAp positive (AAp group; n=1043) and AAp negative (Non-AAp group; n=273). Also, to investigate the factors predicting appendiceal perforation, patients with AAp were divided into two groups considering the presence of perforation: non-perforated AAp (n=850) and perforated AAp (n=193). ROC curve analysis was used to identify optimum cut-off values of quantitative variables. The groups were compared using univariate analysis methods and parameters with a p≤ 0.20 were taken into a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis method related to factors predicting AAp showed that gender (male; p=0.034; OR=1.4), WBC (≥10.900; p=0.022; OR=1.5), MPV (≥29.1; p=0.006; OR=1.6), TBil (≥0.61; p=0.034; OR=1.4), CRP (≥0.725; p=0.002; OR=1.7), NLR (≥5.13; p=0.034; OR=1.5), PNR (<24.04; p=0.001; OR=1.9) and US findings (AAp+; p<0.001; OR=2.9) were independent factors for predicting AAp. Multivariate analysis method related to factors predicting appendiceal perforation showed that age (≥32 years; p<0.001; OR=2.5), TBil (≥0.67; p=0.046; OR=1.5), CRP (≥3.75; p<0.001; OR=3.0) and NLR (≥5.69; p=0.006; OR=1.8) were independent factors for predicting perforated AAp. CONCLUSION: We believe that predicting both AAp and perforation will help the clinician evaluate patients who applied to the emergency unit with presumed diagnosis AAp. This approach will also contribute to reducing the negative appendectomy and perforation rates.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKBULUT, A. S., KOÇ, C., ŞAHİN, T. T., ŞAHİN, E., TUNCER, A., DEMYATİ, K., ŞAMDANCI, E. T., ÇOLAK, C., YILMAZ, S. (2021). An investigation into the factors predicting acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 4, 434–442. https://ajindex.com/articles/413951

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Ferris M, Quan S, Kaplan BS, Molodecky N, Ball CG, Chernoff GW, et al. The global incidence of appendicitis: A systematic review of population-based studies. Ann Surg 2017;266:237−41
  2. Wagner JM, McKinney WP, Carpenter JL. Does this patient have appendicitis?. JAMA 1996;276:1589−94
  3. Sirikurnpiboon S, Amornpornchareon S. Factors associated with perforated appendicitis in elderly patients in a tertiary care hospital. Surg Res Pract 2015;2015:847681
  4. Kulvatunyou N, Zimmerman SA, Joseph B, Friese RS, Gries L, O’Keeffe T, et al. Risk factors for perforated appendicitis in the acute care surgery era-minimizing the patient’s delayed presentation factor. J Surg Res 2019;238:113−8
  5. Debnath J, George RA, Ravikumar R. Imaging in acute appendicitis: What, when, and why?. Med J Armed Forces India 2017;73:74−9
  6. Tan WJ, Acharyya S, Goh YC, Chan WH, Wong WK, Ooi LL, et al. Prospective comparison of the Alvarado score and CT scan in the evaluation of suspected appendicitis: a proposed algorithm to guide CT use. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:218−24
  7. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:557−64
  8. Kidwai R, Sharma A. Acute perforated appendicitis: clinical profile and analysis of risk factors. J Nepalgunj Med Coll 2018;16:13−5
  9. Baird DLH, Simillis C, Kontovounisios C, Rasheed S, Tekkis PP. Acute appendicitis. BMJ 2017;357:j1703
  10. Lee M, Paavana T, Mazari F, Wilson TR. The morbidity of negative appendicectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014;96:517−20
  11. Akbulut S, Koc C, Kocaaslan H, Gonultas F, Samdanci E, Yologlu S, et al. Comparison of clinical and histopathological features of patients who underwent incidental or emergency appendectomy. World J Gastrointest Surg 2019;11:19−26
  12. Almström M, Svensson JF, Svenningsson A, Hagel E, Wester T. Population-based cohort study on the epidemiology of acute appendicitis in children in Sweden in 1987-2013. BJS Open 2018;2:142−50
  13. Lin KB, Chan CL, Yang NP, Lai RK, Liu YH, Zhu SZ, et al. Epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy for the low-income population in Taiwan, 2003-2011. BMC Gastroenterol 2015;15:18
  14. Bhangu A, Søreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT. Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2015;386:1278−87
  15. Seetahal SA, Bolorunduro OB, Sookdeo TC, Oyetunji TA, Greene WR, Frederick W, et al. Negative appendectomy: a 10-year review of a nationally representative sample. Am J