ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2018
Laparostomy during pregnancy: A case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute appendicitis is the main indication for surgery during pregnancy. Physiologic changes during pregnancy and fear of using ionising radiation exams are some of the reasons to delayed diagnosis and consequently to higher morbidity and mortality rates for mother and fetus. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present the case of a 38-year-old woman that resorted to the emergency room on the 13th week of pregnancy with abdominal discomfort, nausea and vomiting that lasted for 7 days. She had been in the Obstetric Emergency Department 6 days prior with the same complaints. She had no fever and she was discharged home following normal obstetric ultrasound. On this second visit, after surgical consultation, septic shock with abdominal source was recognised and patient was taken for emergency exploratory laparotomy. Intraoperatively we found generalised purulent peritonitis secondary to perforated acute appendicitis. Appendectomy, thorough abdominal washing and laparostomy were performed. Patient was admitted on the Intensive Care Unit with septic shock, need for vasopressor therapy and dialysis. Four days after the first intervention the abdominal cavity was closed. She was discharged home on the 14th post-operative day and maintained obstetric follow-up for the remaining uncomplicated pregnancy. DISCUSSION: In the presented clinical case, diagnostic delay evolves to abdominal sepsis that demanded a damage control approach. Laparostomy constitutes a damage control gesture, limiting abdominal contamination, preventing abdominal compartment syndrome and allowing subsequent surgical revisions.
conclusionAcute abdominal approach using laparostomy allowed for a good outcome, maintaining ongoing pregnancy and with incisional hernia as the only observed morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.