BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the role of inflammatory markers in decreasing negative appendectomy rate (NAR) based on their relation with findings of acute appendicitis (AA) on computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Ninety-two patients who underwent CT examination with suspected AA were included. We investigated the relation between CT findings of AA and laboratory inflammatory markers and also performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to calculate cut-off values of inflammatory markers and CT findings of AA. Appendectomy cases were re-evaluated considering cut-off values to make the operation decision and NAR was recalculated. Chi-squared test was used to compare the actual and recalculated NAR. RESULTS: Cut-off values of appendiceal diameter, appendiceal wall thickness, and caecal wall thickness were 7.9, 2, and 2.3 mm, respectively, for the diagnosis of AA. Cut-off values of WBC , NLR, and CRP on ROC analysis were 7.47, 4.06 and 13, respectively, for the diagnosis of AA. When the actual and recalculated NAR (21.9% versus 9.1%) were compared, the difference was found to be almost significant (p=0.058). CONCLUSION: Inflammatory markers are not sufficiently powerful on their own to accurately diagnose AA. However, particularly in equivocal cases, proposed cut-off values may be helpful for accurate diagnosis and a lower NAR can be achieved.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the role of inflammatory markers in decreasing negative appendectomy rate (NAR) based on their relation with findings of acute appendicitis (AA) on computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Ninety-two patients who underwent CT examination with suspected AA were included. We investigated the relation between CT findings of AA and laboratory inflammatory markers and also performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to calculate cut-off values of inflammatory markers and CT findings of AA. Appendectomy cases were re-evaluated considering cut-off values to make the operation decision and NAR was recalculated. Chi-squared test was used to compare the actual and recalculated NAR. RESULTS: Cut-off values of appendiceal diameter, appendiceal wall thickness, and caecal wall thickness were 7.9, 2, and 2.3 mm, respectively, for the diagnosis of AA. Cut-off values of WBC , NLR, and CRP on ROC analysis were 7.47, 4.06 and 13, respectively, for the diagnosis of AA. When the actual and recalculated NAR (21.9% versus 9.1%) were compared, the difference was found to be almost significant (p=0.058). CONCLUSION: Inflammatory markers are not sufficiently powerful on their own to accurately diagnose AA. However, particularly in equivocal cases, proposed cut-off values may be helpful for accurate diagnosis and a lower NAR can be achieved.