Laparoscopic negative appendectomy during pregnancy is associated with adverse neonatal outcome.
Appendicitis
Laparoscopy
Negative-appendectomy
Pregnancy
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
09
01
2021
pubmed:
3
2
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
2
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The impact on pregnancy of laparoscopy for acute appendicitis is well documented. However, with an accurate pre-operative diagnosis being more challenging in pregnant patients, the incidence of a negative appendectomy (NA) is higher in this cohort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the maternal and neonatal implications of a NA during pregnancy. A single center retrospective study between 2004 and 2019 was performed. Pregnant women who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected appendicitis were identified from which those who had a pathologically normal appendix were selected. The maternal and neonatal outcome of this group were compared with a matched control group of pregnant women who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy for a presumed ovarian torsion in whom no further surgical intervention was performed. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore factors that gestational size. Of the 225 pregnant women who underwent laparoscopy appendectomy, a NA was performed in 33 (14.7%). These were compared with 50 pregnant women in the diagnostic laparoscopy group. The former was characterized by higher rate of nulliparity and later gestational age at the time of the surgery (17.8 ± 7.5 vs 11.3 ± 6.3, p < 0.001). Whilst the rate of maternal complications during pregnancy were similar between the groups, NA was associated with significantly lower neonatal birthweights (2733.9 ± 731.1 vs 3200.7 ± 458.5 g, p = 0.002) and a significantly higher risk of small for gestational age (SGA) infants (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.02-30.9). Performing a NA during pregnancy is an indicator for perioperative counseling and antenatal follow up.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The impact on pregnancy of laparoscopy for acute appendicitis is well documented. However, with an accurate pre-operative diagnosis being more challenging in pregnant patients, the incidence of a negative appendectomy (NA) is higher in this cohort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the maternal and neonatal implications of a NA during pregnancy.
METHODS
A single center retrospective study between 2004 and 2019 was performed. Pregnant women who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected appendicitis were identified from which those who had a pathologically normal appendix were selected. The maternal and neonatal outcome of this group were compared with a matched control group of pregnant women who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy for a presumed ovarian torsion in whom no further surgical intervention was performed. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore factors that gestational size.
RESULTS
Of the 225 pregnant women who underwent laparoscopy appendectomy, a NA was performed in 33 (14.7%). These were compared with 50 pregnant women in the diagnostic laparoscopy group. The former was characterized by higher rate of nulliparity and later gestational age at the time of the surgery (17.8 ± 7.5 vs 11.3 ± 6.3, p < 0.001). Whilst the rate of maternal complications during pregnancy were similar between the groups, NA was associated with significantly lower neonatal birthweights (2733.9 ± 731.1 vs 3200.7 ± 458.5 g, p = 0.002) and a significantly higher risk of small for gestational age (SGA) infants (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.02-30.9).
CONCLUSIONS
Performing a NA during pregnancy is an indicator for perioperative counseling and antenatal follow up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33527207
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08315-2
pii: 10.1007/s00464-021-08315-2
pmc: PMC8741703
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
544-549Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Surg. 2008 Aug;6(4):339-44
pubmed: 18342590
World J Emerg Surg. 2019 Jul 22;14:37
pubmed: 31367227
World J Surg. 2017 Jan;41(1):75-81
pubmed: 27730353
World J Emerg Surg. 2016 Jul 18;11:34
pubmed: 27437029
Isr Med Assoc J. 2005 May;7(5):311-4
pubmed: 15909464
Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;77(6):835-40
pubmed: 2030853
Radiology. 2009 Mar;250(3):749-57
pubmed: 19244044
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 12;383(20):1907-1919
pubmed: 33017106
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2019 Apr;101(4):235-248
pubmed: 30855978
BMC Surg. 2019 Apr 25;19(1):41
pubmed: 31023289
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009 Oct;19(5):392-4
pubmed: 19851267
Surg Endosc. 2017 Oct;31(10):3767-3782
pubmed: 28643072
Int J Surg. 2015 Mar;15:84-9
pubmed: 25638737
J Anim Sci. 2018 Jun 29;96(7):2987-3002
pubmed: 29701769
Am J Surg. 2012 Feb;203(2):145-50
pubmed: 21784406
Am J Surg. 1990 Dec;160(6):571-5; discussion 575-6
pubmed: 2252115
J Am Coll Surg. 2007 Oct;205(4):534-40
pubmed: 17903726
Clin Radiol. 2013 May;68(5):e245-8
pubmed: 23352762
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jun;225:40-50
pubmed: 29656140
Br J Surg. 2012 Nov;99(11):1470-8
pubmed: 23001791