The role of laboratory parameters in discriminating between acute diverticulitis and acute epiploic appendagitis: a comprehensive analysis

Year 2026, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 71 - 78, 20.02.2026

Fatih Şahin , Ramazan Topcu , Mehmet Berksun Tutan

https://izlik.org/JA79FW33MD

Abstract

Aims: Acute diverticulitis (AD) and primary epiploic appendagitis (EA) are two distinct pathological entities that often present with similar clinical features, complicating the process of differential diagnosis. While AD is an inflammatory condition of the diverticula that may progress to significant complications, EA represents a self-limiting inflammatory process originating from ischemic infarction of an epiploic appendage. Accurate differentiation between these two conditions is crucial, as management strategies differ significantly: AD may require hospitalization and antibiotic therapy, while EA is typically managed conservatively. Laboratory parameters have been increasingly investigated to assist in the early and accurate diagnosis of these conditions. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of routine laboratory parameters and to develop a novel scoring system to help clinicians distinguish between AD and EA.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 184 patients diagnosed with either EA or AD at Hitit University Medical Faculty Erol Olçok Training and Research Hospital between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2022. Demographic data, laboratory values, including white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil (NE), lymphocyte (LY), hemoglobin (Hb), platelet (Plt), mean platelet volume (MPV), albumin (Alb), creatine kinase (CK), and C-reactive protein (CRP), lesion localization, comorbidities, hospitalization status, length of stay, complications, interventions, recurrence, and colonoscopy findings were recorded. Comparative analyses between the EA and AD groups were performed. Multivariate analysis identified significant predictors for developing the Ramcho Index (RI) and the Ramcho Score (RS), which integrate laboratory and clinical parameters to create an objective, numeric index and a 0–9 point scale.
Results: Among the 184 patients, 109 were diagnosed with AD and 75 with EA. CRP, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and CRP-albumin ratio (CAR) were significantly elevated in AD (all p<0.001). The mean RI was significantly higher in AD (58.9±104.7) compared to EA (16.3±81.8; p<0.001). Similarly, RS was significantly elevated in AD (5.2±1.9) compared to EA (2.7±2.0; p<0.001). An RS threshold of ≥5 predicted AD with 64.2% sensitivity and 81.3% specificity (OR 7.821, 3.881-15,757, p<0.001). When all diagnostic markers were compared, it was found that the RS was superior to other tests with 71.1% accuracy. A patient with an RS of 5 or above was 6.82 times more likely to belong to the AD group than a patient with an RS score below 5.
Conclusion: The RS offers a reliable and practical adjunct to physical examination, clinical history, laboratory inflammatory markers, and imaging findings in differentiating AD from EA. It can be safely utilized in clinical practice to support diagnostic decision-making.

Keywords

Acute diverticulitis , primary epiploic appendagitis , scoring system

References

• Violi A, Cambie G, Miraglia C, et al. Epidemiology and risk factors for diverticular disease. Acta Biomed. 2018;89(9-S):107-112. doi:10.23750/abm.v89i9-S.7924
• Onur MR, Akpinar E, Karaosmanoglu AD, Isayev C, Karcaaltincaba M. Diverticulitis: a comprehensive review with usual and unusual complications. Insights Imaging. 2017;8(1):19-27. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0532-3
• Dogan AN, Cakiroglu B, Akca AH, Aksoy SH, Akar T. Primary epiploic appendagitis: evaluation of computed tomography findings in the differential diagnosis of patients that presented with acute abdominal pain. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022;26(1):59-63. doi:10.26355/eurrev_ 202201_27748
• Molla E, Ripolles T, Martinez MJ, Morote V, Rosello-Sastre E. Primary epiploic appendagitis: US and CT findings. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(3):435-438. doi:10.1007/s003300050408
• Schnedl WJ, Krause R, Tafeit E, Tillich M, Lipp RW, Wallner-Liebmann SJ. Insights into epiploic appendagitis. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;8(1):45-49. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2010.189
• Abbas R. Neither appendicitis nor sigmoiditis; it is an appendagitis. Int Surg J. 2022;9(12):1989 1990. doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20222854
• Chen JH, Wu CC, Wu PH. Epiploic appendagitis: an uncommon and easily misdiagnosed disease. J Dig Dis. 2011;12(6):448-452. doi:10.1111/j.1751- 2980.2011.00543.x
• Macari M, Laks S, Hajdu C, Babb J. Caecal epiploic appendagitis: an unlikely occurrence. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(8):895-900. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2007.12.016
• Park JJ, Jung SA, Noh YW, et al. Clinical characteristics of primary epiploic appendagitis. Intest Res. 2009;7(1):47 51. doi:10.5217/ir.2009.7.1.47
• Steele SR, Hull TL, Hyman N, Maykel JA, Read TE, Whitlow CB. The ASCRS manual of colon and rectal surgery. 3rd ed. Cham: Springer; 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01165-9
• Sartelli M, Weber DG, Kluger Y, et al. 2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):32. doi:10.1186/s13017-020-00313-4
• Choi YI, Woo HS, Chung JW, et al. Primary epiploic appendagitis: compared with diverticulitis and focused on obesity and recurrence. Intest Res. 2019;17(4):554-560. doi:10.5217/ir.2018.00148
• Kargin S, Tanrikulu Y. Diagnostic and prognostic significance of inflammatory parameters in acute diverticulitis: a retrospective cohort study. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2021;27(3):325-330. doi:10.14744/tjtes.2020.92068
• Mari A, Khoury T, Lubany A, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios are correlated with complicated diverticulitis and hinchey classification: a simple tool to assess disease severity in the emergency department. Emerg Med Int. 2019;2019: 6321060. doi:10.1155/2019/6321060
• Kechagias A, Rautio T, Kechagias G, Makela J. The role of C-reactive protein in the prediction of the clinical severity of acute diverticulitis. Am Surg. 2014;80(4):391-395.