Search

Although acute appendicitis remains the most common cause of acute abdomen in General Surgery practice, negative appendectomy rates are still high in particularly female patients. Appendicitis scoring systems considering gender can help the clinician to reduce negative appendectomy rates in females. This present study aims to compare the Lintula, Ripasa, Fenyo-Lindberg scoring systems, which use gender as a variable, with the Alvarado, Karaman, scoring systems to evaluate which CSS is more successful in the differential diagnosis of appendicitis in females. We analyzed the records of the patients operated on with a prediagnosis of acute appendicitis in our clinic between 2020 and 2021, retrospectively. Alvarado, adult appendicitis score (AAS), appendicitis inflammatory response score (AIRS), Ripasa, Karaman, Lintula, and Fenyo Lindberg scores were calculated for each patient. The patients were divided into two groups as male and female, according to gender. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the best cut-off value and assess the performance of the test score for appendicitis. Three hundred and sixty-three patients were included in the study. One hundred seventy-two (47.4%) of the patients were male, and 191 (52.6%) were female. Alvarado and AAS were the most valuable score in female (AUC: 0.805, sensitivity: 0.63, specificity: 0.83; and area under curve (AUC): 0.794, Sensitivity 0.71, Specificity: 0.76, respectively), male group (AUC: 0.828, Sensitivity: 0.71, Specificity: 0.83; and AUC: 0.834, Sensitivity 0.74, Specificity: 0.77, respectively), and when patients were not categorized by gender (AUC: 0.818, Sensitivity: 0.67 Specificity: 0.83; and AUC: 0.794, Sensitivity 0.71, Specificity: 0.76, respectively). Although the Alvarado scoring system is the first defined appendicitis scoring system, it seems as superior to the many scoring systems defined after it in predicting appendicitis, even in female patients., (© 2022. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

<b> Objective: </b> Cecal diverticulitis may be encountered as a real etiological factor in 1/300 appendectomies. Differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis and cecal diverticulitis is crucial because of the different treatment methods. Our aim is to reveal the importance of distinguishing acute appendicitis from cecal diverticulitis. <p> <b>Methods: </b> The data of patients who were admitted to the hospital between 2015 and 2019 with the complaint of abdominal pain and then finally diagnosed with colon diverticular disease, colon diverticulitis, or acute appendicitis, analyzed retrospectively. <p><b>Results: </b> A total of 19 cecum diverticulitis patients were detected during surgery for acute appendicitis or during clinical and radiological evaluation. 1247 appendectomies were evaluated; the final diagnosis was observed as cecal diverticulitis in 5 patients (0,4%). One hundred nineteen patients diagnosed with colonic diverticulitis at admission were evaluated, while 105 (88,2%) of them had left-sided diverticulitis, 14 (11,7%) of them had solitary cecal diverticulitis. All of the solitary cecal diverticulitis patients were treated conservatively, except one patient who has Hinchey 3 diverticulitis.<p><b> Conclusion: </b> Differential diagnosis of cecum diverticulitis with acute appendicitis is important because cecum diverticulitis can be managed as conservatively in most cases. In order to prevent unnecessary surgical interventions, this importance has increased, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Copyright of Polish Journal of Surgery is the property of Fundacja Polski Przedglad Chirurgiczny and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background. Many scoring systems have been developed for acute appendicitis, which is the most common emergent disorder in surgical practice. Considering the physiological changes and chronic diseases occurring with advancing age, an applied scoring system may not produce the same score in similar patients in all age groups. Objectives. We aimed to compare the predictive values of scoring systems in different age groups. Methods. In this prospective study, the patients operated on in our clinic with a prediagnosis of acute appendicitis between March 2020 and March 2021 were included. We divided them into three age groups as 18–45 years (group 1), 46–65 years (group 2), and >65 years (group 3). We compared the scores of the nine acute appendicitis scoring systems most commonly used in the literature for these age groups. Results. A total of 203 patients were included in our study. The Alvarado scoring system yielded the most accurate results for group 1, whereas the Fenyo–Linberg scoring system was the most accurate system for group 2 and the Eskelinen scoring system for group 3. Conclusion. Age should be considered as a major parameter during the selection of the scoring system to be applied for patients with prediagnosis of acute appendicitis. Our study revealed the Alvarado and the Fenyo–Lindberg scoring systems as the most accurate systems for the differential diagnosis of appendicitis in the 18–45 and 46–65 years age groups, respectively. Although we found the Eskelinen scoring system as the most accurate one in the >65 years age group, the confidence intervals indicated that it may not be appropriate for use alone in this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim. Appendix tumors are mostly incidentally identified in patients who were operated with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. They are detected in approximately 1% of appendectomy specimens. Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) account for over 50% of appendix neoplasms. NETs appearing in the appendix can cause carcinoid syndrome. In our study, we aimed to retrospectively examine the clinical features of patients who underwent appendectomy with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and diagnosed with appendix NET in the postoperative period. Materials/Methods. The records of 4026 patients who were operated with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between January 2008 and January 2020 at the Department of General Surgery at the Sakarya University Faculty of Medicine, were evaluated retrospectively. Clinical findings, demographic data, surgical findings, and results of the patients with appendix NET, as a result of histopathology, were examined in detail. Results. 16 of 4026 patients were reported as NET. Nine of the patients were male, and seven were female. The average age was 33 (19–49). Any of the patients had no signs and symptoms of carcinoid syndrome. All tumors were located at the tip of the appendix, and the mean tumor diameter was 0.85 cm (0.3–2.5 cm). As a result of pathology, one patient had mesoappendix and one patient had serosa invasion. Right hemicolectomy was applied to both patients. In other patients, meso, serosa, and lymphatic invasion were not detected. Tumor size was 2.5 cm in one of the patients, 1.5 cm in one, and 1.4 cm in the other, and the others were below 1 cm. In the postoperative follow-up, all the patients were discharged on average 2.71 (2–6 days) days without any complications. Conclusion. Appendix NETs are mostly asymptomatic and localized in a distal third of the appendix. Symptoms are mostly related to tumor size and distant metastases. Clinical behavior and prognosis can best be predicted by tumor size. Complementary hemicolectomy is recommended for tumors larger than 2 cm and tumors smaller than 1 to 2 cm, such as mesoappendix invasion, positive or uncertain surgical margin, high proliferative rate, and angioinvasion. For tumors whose diameter is less than 1 cm, simple appendectomy alone is sufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]