Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26091987›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016

Laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy versus open: a study in 1999 pregnant patients.

T C Cox, C R Huntington, L J Blair, T Prasad, A E Lincourt, V A Augenstein, B T Heniford

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Pancreatitis in Pregnancy-Comprehensive Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Parturient with Acute Abdomen.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

T C CoxCarolinas 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.
C R HuntingtonCarolinas 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.
L J BlairCarolinas 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.
T PrasadCarolinas 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.
A E LincourtCarolinas 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.
V A AugensteinCarolinas 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.
B T HenifordCarolinas 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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen 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.

methodsPregnant 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.

resultsA 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).

conclusionWhile 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.

Indexed as

AdultAppendectomyAppendicitisBody Mass IndexCholecystectomyCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicCholecystitisDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMultivariate AnalysisOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPregnancyAppendectomyCholecystectomyLaparoscopyNSQIPOutcomesPregnancy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.