Comparison of RIPASA and Alvarado score in diagnosing acute appendicitis

Kagwad, Suraj; Karuppasamy, P.

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20190550

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 The decision of performing an appendectomy was largely based on history, clinical examination and investigations. 20 Diagnostic accuracy can be further improved through the use of USG or CT imaging. However, such routine practice may inflate the cost of health care substantially.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems correlated with intra-operative findings in predicting acute appendicitis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Imaging techniques such as ultrasound and CT (computerised tomography) offer to improve clinical outcome by increasing the accuracy of diagnosis. Ultrasound has the great advantage of being radiation free, however it is operator dependant. In comparison, CT can overcome these limitations and greater sensitivity in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with reported accuracies of 93-98% but it is expensive and not available at all centre, particularly in countries, like India. Hence we need a scoring system such as MASS (modified Alvarado scoring system) and RIPASA (Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha appendicitis) scoring system with good sensitivity and specificity. Aim of the present study was to explore the disease on clinical presentation and to compare both scoring systems in diagnosis of acute appendicitis and correlating both the scoring systems with the intra-operative findings.Methods: This was a prospective study done between October 2019 and October 2020 on hundred patients who underwent appendicectomy at Kempegowda institute of medical sciences and research centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.Results: In the study among subjects with appendicitis, there was significant association between combined MASS and RIPASA score and intra-operative findings.Conclusions: In the study combined MASS and RIPASA score with correlated intra-operative findings had diagnostic accuracy in prediction of acute appendicitis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems correlated with intra-operative findings in predicting acute appendicitis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its propensity for inflammation, which causes the clinical illness known as "acute appendicitis," makes it essential in surgery. Fifty percent of the population has acute appendicitis, making it one of the most prevalent surgical emergencies (Butt et al, 2014;Kagwad and Karuppasamy, 2019). Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common diagnosis for emergency surgeons globally, accounting for up to 20% of all surgical procedures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ripasa Score for Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis Keeping Histopathology as Gold Standard

KHAN,

MUMTAZ,

MALIK

et al. 2023

Biol Clin Sci Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the RIPASA score in diagnosing acute appendicitis using histopathology as the gold standard. The cross-sectional study was conducted at the General Surgery Department of Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, between 17-03-2020 and 16-092020. A total of 171 patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient underwent the RIPASA score, followed by an appendectomy. The appendix specimen obtained during the appendectomy was sent to the laboratory for histopathology. After receiving the histopathology study's objective, which was to determine the report, the results of histopathology, RIPASA score, and other information, including name, age, gender, and age group, were recorded. The age distribution in the sample varied from 15-65 years, with a mean age of 25.8±11.0 years. There were 114 males (66.7%) and 57 females (33.3%). The RIPASA score had a sensitivity of 94.9%, specificity of 64.2%, PPV of 96.7%, NPV of 52.9%, and accuracy of 92.4%. Stratification was also carried out for age and gender. Age 15-25 showed a sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 57.1%, PPV of 97.3%, NPV of 36.3%, and accuracy of 91.9%. Similarly, the age 26-65 group revealed a sensitivity of 97.5%, specificity of 71.4%, PPV of 65.1%, NPV of 83.3%, and accuracy of 93.6%. Stratification by gender showed a sensitivity of 94.2%, specificity of 66.6%, PPV of 97%, NPV of 50%, and accuracy of 92.1% for males, while for females, the sensitivity was 96.1%, specificity was 60%, PPV was 96.1%, NPV was 60%, and accuracy was 92.9%. In conclusion, the study suggests that the RIPASA scoring system is a good choice for doctors in the emergency department to aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis with good sensitivity, albeit with a slightly high profile and specificity, albeit with a bit low profile.

show abstract

Comparison of RIPASA and Alvarado score in diagnosing acute appendicitis

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Comparison of modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems correlated with intra-operative findings in predicting acute appendicitis

Comparison of modified Alvarado and RIPASA scoring systems correlated with intra-operative findings in predicting acute appendicitis

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ripasa Score for Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis Keeping Histopathology as Gold Standard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About