Table 1. Statistical difference analysis of clinical and laboratory features between acute simple appendicitis and acute purulent appendicitis.
| Variable | Sample | Acute simple appendicitis | Acute purulent appendicitis | Statisticsa | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 112 | 39.12±20.00 | 42.02±17.31 | −0.451 | 0.653 |
| Gender | |||||
| M | 61 | 5 (62.50%) | 56 (53.85%) | 0.011 | 0.916 |
| F | 51 | 3 (37.50%) | 48 (46.15%) | ||
| Abdominal pain scoreb [1–10] | |||||
| 2 | 6 | 0 (0.00%) | 6 (5.77%) | 2.184 | 0.139 |
| 3 | 8 | 1 (12.50%) | 7 (6.73%) | ||
| 4 | 13 | 1 (12.50%) | 12 (11.54%) | ||
| 5 | 21 | 5 (62.50%) | 16 (15.38%) | ||
| 6 | 1 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.96%) | ||
| 7 | 31 | 0 (0.00%) | 31 (29.81%) | ||
| 8 | 13 | 0 (0.00%) | 13 (12.50%) | ||
| 9 | 17 | 1 (12.50%) | 16 (15.38%) | ||
| 10 | 2 | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (1.92%) | ||
| Nausea and vomiting score [0–2] | |||||
| 0 | 31 | 7 (87.50%) | 24 (23.08%) | 8.833 | 0.003* |
| 1 | 60 | 0 (0.00%) | 60 (57.69%) | ||
| 2 | 21 | 1 (12.50%) | 20 (19.23%) | ||
| Abdominal pain type [1–3] | |||||
| Metastatic right lower abdominal pain | 85 | 4 (50.00%) | 81 (77.88%) | 2.902 | 0.088 |
| Lower right abdominal pain or lower abdominal pain | 25 | 4 (50.00%) | 21 (20.19%) | ||
| Upper abdominal pain | 2 | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (1.92%) | ||
| Abdominal tenderness range [1–10] | |||||
| 1 | 24 | 4 (50.00%) | 20 (19.23%) | 3.081 | 0.079 |
| 2 | 15 | 0 (0.00%) | 15 (14.42%) | ||
| 3 | 48 | 4 (50.00%) | 44 (42.31%) | ||
| 4 | 3 | 0 (0.00%) | 3 (2.88%) | ||
| 5 | 1 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.96%) | ||
| 6 | 1 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (0.96%) | ||
| 7 | 2 | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (1.92%) | ||
| 8 | 5 | 0 (0.00%) | 5 (4.81%) | ||
| 9 | 13 | 0 (0.00%) | 13 (12.50%) | ||
| Abdominal pain time (hours, mean ± SD) | 112 | 34.75±14.77 | 24.03±15.02 | 1.948 | 0.054 |
| Highest temperature (°C, mean ± SD) | 112 | 37.19±0.63 | 37.46±0.80 | −0.931 | 0.354 |
| WBC counts (×109) (mean ± SD) | 112 | 11.99±3.93 | 13.77±4.23 | −1.153 | 0.252 |
| NE% (mean ± SD) | 112 | 75.61±4.80 | 85.07±7.00 | −3.745 | <0.001* |
| CD3+ (%, mean ± SD) | 112 | 68.91±7.28 | 65.47±8.48 | 1.117 | 0.266 |
| CD4+ (%, mean ± SD) | 112 | 42.12±6.77 | 34.27±7.97 | 2.71 | 0.008* |
| CD8+ (%, mean ± SD) | 112 | 24.62±3.77 | 27.12±8.16 | −1.609 | 0.132 |
| CD19+ (%, mean ± SD) | 112 | 15.89±2.77 | 17.53±7.46 | −0.617 | 0.539 |
| CD16+56- (%, mean ± SD) | 112 | 14.11±6.25 | 15.34±8.50 | −0.52 | 0.615 |
| Total T cell counts (µL, mean ± SD) | 112 | 1417.30±342.76 | 877.45±493.14 | 3.034 | 0.003* |
| Helper T cell counts (µL, mean ± SD) | 112 | 865.75±252.75 | 468.22±279.91 | 3.894 | <0.001* |
| Inhibitor T (µL, mean ± SD) | 112 | 497.38±129.29 | 356.59±219.86 | 1.783 | 0.077 |
| B cell counts (µL, mean ± SD) | 112 | 317.62±42.96 | 224.16±130.27 | 4.709 | <0.001* |
| NK cell counts (µL, mean ± SD) | 112 | 294.38±154.49 | 199.51±149.45 | 1.726 | 0.087 |
| CD4+/CD8+ (mean ± SD) | 112 | 1.76±0.31 | 1.45±0.71 | 2.413 | 0.03* |
| CRP, mg/L (mean ± SD) | 112 | 79.07±49.32 | 52.74±51.87 | 1.388 | 0.168 |
| PCT, ng/L (mean ± SD) | 112 | 0.44±0.95 | 1.43±4.68 | −0.596 | 0.553 |
P value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. * indicated statistical significance. aFisher’s exact test was used for the nominal variable. Wilcoxon test was used for the ordinal variable, whose statistics is W. Student’s t-test was used for the continuous variable with abnormal distribution, whose statistics is t. bVisual analogue scale (VAS) is the most commonly used in pain assessment. The basic method is to use a swimming scale about 10 cm long, with 10 scales on one side. The two ends are “0” and “10” points respectively. 0 points means no pain, and 10 points means the most severe pain that is unbearable. Participants do not need to fill in complicated questionnaires, just look at a “pain ruler”, and then say a number between 0 and 10. In clinical use, the side with scale should be turned back to the patient, and the patient should mark the corresponding position on the ruler which can represent the pain degree of Baiji. The doctor should evaluate the score according to the position marked by the patient, and the clinical evaluation should be “0–2” as “excellent”, “3–5” as “good”, “6–8” as “OK”, and >“8” as “poor”. Before and after clinical treatment using the same method can be more objective to make a score, and the effect of pain treatment can be more objective evaluation. This method is simple, objective and sensitive. SD, standard deviation; WBC, white blood cell; NE, neutrophil; PCT, procalcitonin; hs-CRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.