Comparative Study of Tzanakis Score in effective diagnosis of acute appendicitis


  • Rajendra Prasad Kathula Professor of Surgery,GEMS College Ragolu, Srikakulam,Andhra Pradesh,India
  • Harshitha Kathula Shadaan Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad,India
  • Surendra Taneeru General Surgeon, GEMS,Srikakulam,Andhra Pradesh,India


Acute appendicitis, Tzanakis score, Alvarado score, Diagnosis, Sensitivity


Background:Appendicitis is a common surgical problem. The diagnosis of appendicitis at right point helps in early treatment of the disease. A number of scoring systems have developed in order to diagnose the appendicitis. This study was mainly undertaken to study the efficacy of Tzanakis score in diagnosing Acute appendicitis.Material and Methods:An observational study was undertaken in a tertiary care setting. A total of 30 cases of acute appendicitis constituted the sample size. All the patients were subjected for detailed clinical history and clinical examination, laboratory work up along with Tzanakis scoring and Alvarado scoring. The operative decision was made by experienced surgeon based on overall clinical judgement. Results:About 53.3% of the study subjects belonged to 21 – 30 years of age group. About 80% of the patients were males. About 46% of the patients presented 6 – 24 hours after onset of symptoms. Pain was the most common symptom of the study group followed by Anorexia, Nausea/ Vomiting and fever. The sensitivity for Alvarado scoring was 90%, specificity was 80%, positive predictive value was 90% and Negative predictive value was 90%. The Tzanaki’s score had shown that, the sensitivity was 95.7%, specificity was 85.7%, positive predictive value was 95.7% and negative predictive value was 85.7%.Conclusion:TheTzanakis scoring was a good tool in diagnosis of acute appendicitis.




How to Cite

Rajendra Prasad Kathula, Harshitha Kathula, & Surendra Taneeru. (2021). Comparative Study of Tzanakis Score in effective diagnosis of acute appendicitis. International Journal of Health and Clinical Research, 4(10), 196–198. Retrieved from