T C Cox1, C R Huntington2, L J Blair2, T Prasad2, A E Lincourt2, V A Augenstein2, B T Heniford3. 1. Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. tiffany.c.cox@carolinas.org. 2. Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. 3. Carolinas Laparoscopic and Advanced Surgery Program, Division of Gastrointestinal and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 300, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA. todd.heniford@carolinashealthcare.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When pregnant patients require surgery, whether to perform an operation open or laparoscopic is often debated. We evaluated the impact of laparoscopy for common general surgical problems in pregnancy to determine safety and trends in operative approach over time. METHODS: Pregnant patients undergoing appendectomy or cholecystectomy were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. We analyzed demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes. Univariate comparison and multivariate regression analysis (MVA) were performed adjusting for confounding factors: age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, and smoking, and an additional MVA was performed for perforated cases. RESULTS: A total of 1999 pregnant patients between 2005 and 2012 were evaluated. Of 1335 appendectomies, 894 were performed laparoscopically (LA) and 441 open (OA). For 664 cholecystectomies, 606 were laparoscopic (LC) and 58 open (OC). There were no deaths. For LA versus OA, patient characteristics were not different {age: 27.7 vs. 28.2 years, p = 0.19; diabetes: 1.8 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.24; smoking: 19 vs. 16.1%, p = 0.2} except for BMI (27.9 vs. 28.4 kg/m(2); p = 0.03). LA had shorter operative times (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and fewer postoperative complications compared to OA. In MVA, difference between approaches remained statistically significant for ORT (<0.0001), LOS (<0.01), and wound complications (<0.01). MVA was performed for perforated cases alone: LA had equal ORT (p = 0.19) yet shorter LOS (p = <0.001). The majority of LA were performed in the last 4 years versus the first 4 years (61 vs. 39%, p < 0.001). For LC versus OC, patient characteristics were not different: age (28.3 vs. 28.7 years; p = 0.33), BMI (31.4 vs. 33.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.25), diabetes (2.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.68), and smoking (21.1 vs. 25.9%, p = 0.4). LC had a shorter ORT, LOS, and fewer postoperative complications than OC. In MVA, the difference between approaches remained statistically significant for ORT (<0.0001), LOS (<0.0001), and minor complications (<0.01). In MVA for cholecystitis with perforation, no difference was seen for LOS, ORT, or postoperative complications (p > 0.05). The percentage of LC cases appeared to increase over time (89 vs. 93%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: While fetal events are unknown, LA and LC in pregnant patients demonstrated shorter ORT, LOS, and reduced complications and were performed more frequently over time. Even in perforated cases, laparoscopy appears safe in pregnant patients.
BACKGROUND: When pregnant patients require surgery, whether to perform an operation open or laparoscopic is often debated. We evaluated the impact of laparoscopy for common general surgical problems in pregnancy to determine safety and trends in operative approach over time. METHODS: Pregnant patients undergoing appendectomy or cholecystectomy were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. We analyzed demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes. Univariate comparison and multivariate regression analysis (MVA) were performed adjusting for confounding factors: age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, and smoking, and an additional MVA was performed for perforated cases. RESULTS: A total of 1999 pregnant patients between 2005 and 2012 were evaluated. Of 1335 appendectomies, 894 were performed laparoscopically (LA) and 441 open (OA). For 664 cholecystectomies, 606 were laparoscopic (LC) and 58 open (OC). There were no deaths. For LA versus OA, patient characteristics were not different {age: 27.7 vs. 28.2 years, p = 0.19; diabetes: 1.8 vs. 0.9%, p = 0.24; smoking: 19 vs. 16.1%, p = 0.2} except for BMI (27.9 vs. 28.4 kg/m(2); p = 0.03). LA had shorter operative times (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and fewer postoperative complications compared to OA. In MVA, difference between approaches remained statistically significant for ORT (<0.0001), LOS (<0.01), and wound complications (<0.01). MVA was performed for perforated cases alone: LA had equal ORT (p = 0.19) yet shorter LOS (p = <0.001). The majority of LA were performed in the last 4 years versus the first 4 years (61 vs. 39%, p < 0.001). For LC versus OC, patient characteristics were not different: age (28.3 vs. 28.7 years; p = 0.33), BMI (31.4 vs. 33.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.25), diabetes (2.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.68), and smoking (21.1 vs. 25.9%, p = 0.4). LC had a shorter ORT, LOS, and fewer postoperative complications than OC. In MVA, the difference between approaches remained statistically significant for ORT (<0.0001), LOS (<0.0001), and minor complications (<0.01). In MVA for cholecystitis with perforation, no difference was seen for LOS, ORT, or postoperative complications (p > 0.05). The percentage of LC cases appeared to increase over time (89 vs. 93%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: While fetal events are unknown, LA and LC in pregnant patients demonstrated shorter ORT, LOS, and reduced complications and were performed more frequently over time. Even in perforated cases, laparoscopy appears safe in pregnant patients.
Authors: Eran Sadot; Dana A Telem; Manjit Arora; Parag Butala; Scott Q Nguyen; Celia M Divino Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-06-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; J Demakis; J B Aust; V Chong; P J Fabri; J O Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; G Irvin; G McDonald; E Passaro; L Phillips; F Scamman; J Spencer; J F Stremple Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P Sungler; P M Heinerman; H Steiner; H W Waclawiczek; J Holzinger; F Mayer; A Heuberger; O Boeckl Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Jeong Min Eom; Jin Hwa Hong; Seung Wook Jeon; Joong Sub Choi; Jung Hun Lee; Hyung Ook Kim; Hungdai Kim; Pil Cho Choi; Sang Kuk Han Journal: Ann Acad Med Singapore Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.473
Authors: Jason A Pates; Troy C Avendiano; Michael V Zaretsky; Donald D McIntire; Diane M Twickler Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jonathan P Pearl; Raymond R Price; Allison E Tonkin; William S Richardson; Dimitrios Stefanidis Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Frountzas; C Nikolaou; K Stergios; K Kontzoglou; K Toutouzas; V Pergialiotis Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Arianna Birindelli; Micheal D Kelly; Fausto Catena; Dieter G Weber; Massimo Sartelli; Michael Sugrue; Mark De Moya; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Aneel Bhangu; Ferdinando Agresta; Ernest E Moore; Kjetil Soreide; Ewen Griffiths; Steve De Castro; Jeffry Kashuk; Yoram Kluger; Ari Leppaniemi; Luca Ansaloni; Manne Andersson; Federico Coccolini; Raul Coimbra; Kurinchi S Gurusamy; Fabio Cesare Campanile; Walter Biffl; Osvaldo Chiara; Fred Moore; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; David Costa; Ronald V Maier; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Roberto Cirocchi; Valeria Tonini; Alice Piccinini; Gregorio Tugnoli; Elio Jovine; Roberto Persiani; Antonio Biondi; Thomas Scalea; Philip Stahel; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: E Ball; N Waters; N Cooper; C Talati; R Mallick; S Rabas; A Mukherjee; Y Sri Ranjan; M Thaha; R Doodia; R Keedwell; M Madhra; N Kuruba; R Malhas; E Gaughan; K Tompsett; H Gibson; H Wright; C Gnanachandran; T Hookaway; C Baker; K Murali; D Jurkovic; N Amso; J Clark; S Thangaratinam; T Chalhoub; P Kaloo; E Saridogan Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn Date: 2019-03
Authors: Jianzhou Yang; Shi Wu Wen; Daniel Krewski; Daniel J Corsi; Mark Walker; Donald Mattison; Ryan Moog; Doug McNair; Huiping Huang; Guihua Zhuang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eliana Montanari; Richard Schwameis; Marisa Louridas; Christian Göbl; Lorenz Kuessel; Stephan Polterauer; Heinrich Husslein Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.889