In our study, perforated appendicitis was found in 87 (41%) patients, a result that lies within the range reported PF-01367338 clinical trial by many other reports [3, 4, 7,

8, 13, 14, 18]. Also found in the study was the absence of sex predilection for perforation; 46 (53%) patients were males and 41 (47%) were females. Although 92 (43%) of all patients had co morbid diseases at presentation, the risk of perforation did not appear to depend upon their presence (Table 1). These results were in conformity to the finding of Storm-Dickerson et al.[4]. Delay in presentation was found by many authors to be the reason behind the higher rate of perforation seen in the elderly population [2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 15–17]. Our study showed that perforation rate correlated well with delayed presentation (pre-hospital delay) but did not correlate with the in-hospital delay. The triad of right lower abdominal pain and tenderness, fever and leukocytosis is reported to be present in not more than 26% of patients above Rho inhibitor 60 years [4, 19, 20]. In this study, all patients presented to the hospital

with abdominal pain. However, the classical migratory pain of appendicitis was present in only 47% of them. Localized tenderness in the right lower abdomen which is considered to be the most constant diagnostic physical sign for appendicitis was present in 84% of cases. Both features (migratory pain and localized tenderness) were seen

more often in the nonperforated rather than in the perforated group (Table 3). This finding may PLEK2 be explained by the fact that patients with perforated appendix would show poor localization of pain as well as more generalized lower abdominal tenderness and guarding. Our study showed that, fever (>38°C) was present in 41% of all patients and was much higher in the perforated group (Table 3), a result which is in agreement with the findings of other studies [4, 6, 21]. Also in the study, WBC was found elevated in 63% of all patients with 74% shifts to left. As expected, values were higher in the perforated group as 71% of them had high WBC with 94% shift to left (Table 3). Again, a result in agreement with many other studies [1, 4, 21]. There are many scoring systems that have been used in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis like Selleckchem Osimertinib Alvarado, Kharbanda and Lintula scores [22–24]. In general, these clinical scoring systems have better Likelihood ratios (LRs) than individual symptoms or signs alone. However, they don’t have sufficient discriminatory or predictive ability to routinely be used alone to diagnose appendicitis. They have been used to determine the need for further radiologic studies or as a guide for dictating clinical management [25–27]. The policy of our hospitals has not adopted the use of any scoring system so far.