The effect of non-obstetric invasive procedures during pregnancy on perinatal outcomes

Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy and the effects on maternal and fetal outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy on pregnancy, fetal and maternal outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search span was from January 2000 to November 2022. Thirty-six studies matched the inclusion criteria, and 24 publications were identified through reference mining; 60 studies were included in this review. Outcome measures were miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight, low Apgar score, and infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

We obtained data for 80,205 women who underwent non-obstetric surgery and data for 16,655,486 women who did not undergo surgery during pregnancy. Prevalence of non-obstetric surgery was between 0.23% and 0.74% (median 0.37%). Appendectomy was the most common procedure with median prevalence of 0.10%. Near half (43%) of the procedures were performed during the second trimester, 32% during the first trimester, and 25% during the third trimester. Half of surgeries were scheduled, and half were emergent. Laparoscopic and open techniques were used equally for abdominal cavity. Women who underwent non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy had increased rate of stillbirth (odds ratio (OR) 2.0) and preterm birth (OR 2.1) compared to women without surgery. Surgery during pregnancy did not increase rate of miscarriage (OR 1.1), low 5 min Apgar scores (OR 1.1), the fetus being small for gestational age (OR 1.1) or congenital anomalies (OR 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of non-obstetric surgery has decreased during last decades, but still two out of 1000 pregnant women have scheduled surgery during pregnancy. Surgery during pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, and preterm birth. For abdominal cavity surgery, both laparoscopic and open approaches are feasible.

Subsequent pregnancy outcomes after abdominal vs. laparoscopic myomectomy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether abdominal (open) vs. laparoscopic myomectomy affects the obstetrical outcomes of subsequent pregnancies.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary university medical center. The study population included women who had a documented birth following a myomectomy at our institution between the years 1997 and 2018. The obstetrical characteristics and immediate perinatal outcomes of the subsequent pregnancy following open vs. laparoscopic myomectomy were collected and compared. Data were retrieved from patients' medical records via the institutional computerized database. Cases that lacked detailed surgery and delivery reports were excluded. Data were analyzed using a chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way ANOVA for continuous variables. A p-value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

During the study period, 57 women met the inclusion criteria, of whom 66.6% (38/57) had an open and 33.3% (19/57) had a laparoscopic myomectomy. Women who underwent an open myomectomy had a higher rate of cesarean birth than those in the laparoscopic group (89.5 vs. 42.1%, p < .001). No cases of severe maternal or perinatal complications, uterine ruptures, or placental abruptions were identified in either study group. No other significant differences were noted between the two types of myomectomy.

CONCLUSION

Open myomectomy is associated with a higher rate of cesarean delivery than laparoscopic. No severe adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes were detected in either study group.

Diagnostic Imaging and Outcomes for Nonobstetric Surgery During Pregnancy

A surgical disease occurring during pregnancy can present a diagnostic dilemma due to the desire to make a timely and accurate diagnosis within the constraints of limiting radiation exposure to the fetus. However, required diagnostic imaging should be pursued when indicated and attempts made to minimize the radiation dose by utilizing abdominal shielding and low-dose protocols when feasible. When surgery is indicated due to disease processes, treatment should not be altered or delayed due to pregnancy as the evidence for adverse pregnancy outcomes including early pregnancy loss and preterm delivery are overall of low quality due to substantial confounding by the disease process itself.

Non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy - an eleven-year retrospective analysis

Background

Diagnosis and management of non-obstetric abdominal pathologies during pregnancy are clinically challenging for both obstetricians and general surgeons. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of pregnant patients who had undergone non-obstetric abdominal surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 76 pregnant patients who had required surgery for non-obstetric abdominal pathologies during pregnancy at our department from January 2005 to December 2015. Data were collected retrospectively from medical records as well as from our institutional perinatal database. We evaluated data for clinical presentation, perioperative management, preterm labor, and maternal and fetal outcomes.

Results

The patients’ mean age was 29 (interquartile range IQR 25–33) years. Indications for surgery were acute appendicitis in 63%, adnexal pathology in 11%, cholecystolithiasis in 5% and other indications in 21%; surgery was performed in an elective setting in 18% and in an emergent/urgent setting in 82%. In five cases, complications, three of them oncological, called for further surgery. Ninety-seven percent of operations were conducted under general anesthesia. Median skin-to-skin time was 50 (37–80) minutes, median in-hospital stay was 4 (3.5–6) days, and 5 % required postoperative intensive care. Preterm labor occurred in 15%, miscarriage in 7% (none of them directly related to abdominal surgery).

Conclusion

Abdominal surgery for non-obstetric pathology during pregnancy can be performed safely, if mandatory, without increases in maternal and fetal pathology, miscarriage, and preterm birth rates.

Laparoscopy during pregnancy: Case report and key points to improve laparoscopic management

CASE REPORT

A 34-year-old woman in her 19th week of gestation was admitted to the Emergency Department of our hospital for acute abdominal pain. The patient was diagnosed with haemoperitoneum. Laparoscopy was performed and revealed acute bleeding from a crumbly superficial uterine vascular network. Haemostasis was achieved and both mother and foetus recovered well after surgery. A caesarean section was performed at 38 weeks, delivering a healthy newborn and revealing that the pregnancy had developed in a rudimentary hemiuterus. Laparoscopy during pregnancy is safe and feasible and can be performed in any trimestre of pregnancy with no differences in perinatal outcomes but, as intervention complexity increases with gestational age, laparoscopy during pregnancy should be performed by experienced surgeons To minimise surgical risk several recommendations should be taken into account: gravid patients should be positioned in a left-tilted supine position, trocar placement should be adjusted to uterine size and gas insuflattion of 10-15mmHg can be used.