Introduction: Diagnostic wanderings of acute appendicitis are responsible for serious complications or abusive appendectomies. Existing Clinico-biological scores are efficient. Objective: To determine the diagnostic e...Introduction: Diagnostic wanderings of acute appendicitis are responsible for serious complications or abusive appendectomies. Existing Clinico-biological scores are efficient. Objective: To determine the diagnostic efficiency of Fran?ois’ score in acute appendicitis. Methodology: over 10 months, all the patients admitted in the CHUD-Parakou Emergency Department for pain in the right iliac fossa had been examined by resident students who calculated Fran?ois’ score. After verification by the surgeon, patients were put into three categories: category 1 score ≥ 2;category 2, score between -6 and 2;category 3, score below -6. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results: out of 54 patients selected (29 men and 25 women), 29 were classified as group 1;19 as group 2 and 6 as group 3. An ultrasound was performed in all patients in group 2, and signs in favor of appendicitis were found in 12 patients. Of the 41 appendicectomies performed, the histologic analysis of 33 operative specimens found a pathological appendix. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value per group were 100%. It has prevented almost in one every four patients (24.07%) an abusive appendectomy. Conclusion: This score would reduce diagnostic wanderings and target patient groups for imaging studies.展开更多
文摘Introduction: Diagnostic wanderings of acute appendicitis are responsible for serious complications or abusive appendectomies. Existing Clinico-biological scores are efficient. Objective: To determine the diagnostic efficiency of Fran?ois’ score in acute appendicitis. Methodology: over 10 months, all the patients admitted in the CHUD-Parakou Emergency Department for pain in the right iliac fossa had been examined by resident students who calculated Fran?ois’ score. After verification by the surgeon, patients were put into three categories: category 1 score ≥ 2;category 2, score between -6 and 2;category 3, score below -6. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results: out of 54 patients selected (29 men and 25 women), 29 were classified as group 1;19 as group 2 and 6 as group 3. An ultrasound was performed in all patients in group 2, and signs in favor of appendicitis were found in 12 patients. Of the 41 appendicectomies performed, the histologic analysis of 33 operative specimens found a pathological appendix. Sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value per group were 100%. It has prevented almost in one every four patients (24.07%) an abusive appendectomy. Conclusion: This score would reduce diagnostic wanderings and target patient groups for imaging studies.
