Faran Hamid, Saeed Bin Ayaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Nabeel Imran, Adnan Mehraj, Naheed Akhtar
{"title":"急性阑尾炎的手术表现:中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞和血小板与淋巴细胞比值的关系。","authors":"Faran Hamid, Saeed Bin Ayaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Nabeel Imran, Adnan Mehraj, Naheed Akhtar","doi":"10.29271/jcpsp.2025.10.1325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To ascertain whether the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are reliable diagnostic tools for acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>An analytical study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Hospital, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, from January to June 2022.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study was conducted using consecutive sampling of patients aged ≥16 years. Admission haemogram was used to calculate the NLR and PLR. These ratios were compared with peroperative findings regarding the stage of inflammation in the appendix. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were compared and evaluated using a non-parametric (empirical) method for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of patients was 26 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.03. NLR had a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 93.3%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.2%, and an accuracy of 70.2% in separating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it had a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 100%, an NPV of 98%, and an accuracy of 73.03% in separating non-inflamed appendix from uncomplicated appendicitis. PLR did not show any significant differentiation between non-inflamed appendix and uncomplicated appendicitis (p = 0.8), and its accuracy for differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis was also low, that is, 48.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NLR is a helpful diagnostic tool that can predict uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and differentiate between them. However, relying solely on NLR for diagnosing appendicitis is not advisable. PLR does not have similar predictability. More research needs to be done to find additional biomarkers for NLR and PLR to improve their predictability as a diagnostic tool.</p><p><strong>Key words: </strong>Appendicitis, Biomarker, Negative appendectomy, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, Perforation, Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, Sensitivity, Specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":94116,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP","volume":"35 10","pages":"1325-1330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peroperative Findings in Acute Appendicitis: Relationship with Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios.\",\"authors\":\"Faran Hamid, Saeed Bin Ayaz, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Nabeel Imran, Adnan Mehraj, Naheed Akhtar\",\"doi\":\"10.29271/jcpsp.2025.10.1325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To ascertain whether the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are reliable diagnostic tools for acute appendicitis.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>An analytical study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Hospital, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, from January to June 2022.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>This study was conducted using consecutive sampling of patients aged ≥16 years. Admission haemogram was used to calculate the NLR and PLR. These ratios were compared with peroperative findings regarding the stage of inflammation in the appendix. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were compared and evaluated using a non-parametric (empirical) method for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median age of patients was 26 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.03. NLR had a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 93.3%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.2%, and an accuracy of 70.2% in separating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it had a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 100%, an NPV of 98%, and an accuracy of 73.03% in separating non-inflamed appendix from uncomplicated appendicitis. PLR did not show any significant differentiation between non-inflamed appendix and uncomplicated appendicitis (p = 0.8), and its accuracy for differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis was also low, that is, 48.2%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NLR is a helpful diagnostic tool that can predict uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and differentiate between them. However, relying solely on NLR for diagnosing appendicitis is not advisable. PLR does not have similar predictability. More research needs to be done to find additional biomarkers for NLR and PLR to improve their predictability as a diagnostic tool.</p><p><strong>Key words: </strong>Appendicitis, Biomarker, Negative appendectomy, Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, Perforation, Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, Sensitivity, Specificity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94116,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP\",\"volume\":\"35 10\",\"pages\":\"1325-1330\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2025.10.1325\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2025.10.1325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:探讨血小板与淋巴细胞比值(PLR)和中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值(NLR)是否为急性阑尾炎的可靠诊断工具。研究设计:分析性研究。研究地点和时间:2022年1月至6月,巴基斯坦穆扎法拉巴德Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan医院普通外科和腹腔镜外科。方法:本研究采用年龄≥16岁的患者连续抽样进行。采用入院血流图计算NLR和PLR。将这些比率与阑尾炎症分期的手术结果进行比较。采用非参数(经验)方法对受试者工作特征曲线分析的灵敏度、特异性和准确率进行比较和评估。结果:患者中位年龄26岁,男女比例为1:1.03。NLR诊断阑尾炎的敏感性为76.9%,特异性为93.3%,阴性预测值(NPV)为94.2%,区分复杂与非复杂阑尾炎的准确率为70.2%。此外,它在区分非炎症阑尾和非并发症阑尾炎方面的敏感性为73%,特异性为100%,NPV为98%,准确率为73.03%。PLR对无炎阑尾与无并发症阑尾炎无明显区分(p = 0.8),其鉴别复杂与无并发症阑尾炎的准确率也较低,为48.2%。结论:NLR是一种有效的诊断工具,可预测单纯性阑尾炎和复合性阑尾炎并加以区分。然而,仅仅依靠NLR诊断阑尾炎是不可取的。PLR没有类似的可预测性。需要做更多的研究来寻找NLR和PLR的其他生物标志物,以提高其作为诊断工具的可预测性。关键词:阑尾炎,生物标志物,阴性阑尾切除术,中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值,穿孔,血小板与淋巴细胞比值,敏感性,特异性
Peroperative Findings in Acute Appendicitis: Relationship with Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios.
Objective: To ascertain whether the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are reliable diagnostic tools for acute appendicitis.
Study design: An analytical study. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of General and Laparoscopic Surgery, Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Hospital, Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, from January to June 2022.
Methodology: This study was conducted using consecutive sampling of patients aged ≥16 years. Admission haemogram was used to calculate the NLR and PLR. These ratios were compared with peroperative findings regarding the stage of inflammation in the appendix. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were compared and evaluated using a non-parametric (empirical) method for receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
Results: The median age of patients was 26 years, with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.03. NLR had a sensitivity of 76.9%, a specificity of 93.3%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.2%, and an accuracy of 70.2% in separating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. Moreover, it had a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 100%, an NPV of 98%, and an accuracy of 73.03% in separating non-inflamed appendix from uncomplicated appendicitis. PLR did not show any significant differentiation between non-inflamed appendix and uncomplicated appendicitis (p = 0.8), and its accuracy for differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis was also low, that is, 48.2%.
Conclusion: NLR is a helpful diagnostic tool that can predict uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and differentiate between them. However, relying solely on NLR for diagnosing appendicitis is not advisable. PLR does not have similar predictability. More research needs to be done to find additional biomarkers for NLR and PLR to improve their predictability as a diagnostic tool.