4.2 Article

Neutrophil to Lymphocyte Ratio on Appendectomy of Geriatric and Nongeriatric Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 285-290

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2016.1241324

关键词

geriatrics; acute appendicitis; neutrophil; lymphocyte

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Acute appendicitis is the most frequent emergency procedure that requires acute surgical intervention. The mortality risk is higher in geriatric patients. There is not a single parameter to diagnose it easily and negative appendectomy is traditionally accepted however the operation itself can cause morbidity and mortality especially in elderly patients. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a predictor of acute inflammation and was recently studied for the diagnosis of AA. The aim of this study is to analyze the diagnostic value of NLR on positive appendectomy rates amongst geriatric and nongeriatric patients. Materials and Methods: 755 patients admitted to the emergency department, with abdominal pain who underwent urgent laparotomy after diagnosed as acute appendicitis. Patients' ages, genders, laboratory results, and intraoperative findings were collected. Geriatric patients were analyzed in group one, and nongeriatric patients were in group 2. Groups then sorted into subgroups by means of positive and negative appendectomies. Results: Although NLR was higher in positive appendectomy subgroup in group 1 it was not statistically significant. NLR could not independently predict positive appendectomy in geriatric patients. In group 2, male gender was significantly higher in the positive appendectomy group (p < 0.001). NLR was also significantly higher in the positive appendectomy group (p < 0.001). In group 2 NLR could independently predict positive appendectomy (p < 0.001). Conclusion: NLR could not predict positive appendectomy rates in the geriatric population but could in the nongeriatric patient group. To find the optimal NLR levels, prospective randomized studies are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据