Cargando…

Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Recently, laparoscopic appendectomies (LAs) have been widely performed instead of open appendectomies (OAs) during pregnancy. However, concerns about the safety of LA during pregnancy remain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current evidence relating to the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Seung Hwan, Lee, Jin Young, Choi, Yoon Young, Lee, Jae Gil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31023289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-019-0505-9
_version_ 1783413913830817792
author Lee, Seung Hwan
Lee, Jin Young
Choi, Yoon Young
Lee, Jae Gil
author_facet Lee, Seung Hwan
Lee, Jin Young
Choi, Yoon Young
Lee, Jae Gil
author_sort Lee, Seung Hwan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Recently, laparoscopic appendectomies (LAs) have been widely performed instead of open appendectomies (OAs) during pregnancy. However, concerns about the safety of LA during pregnancy remain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current evidence relating to the safety of LA versus OA for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles describing LA versus OA in pregnancy, without restrictions regarding the publication date. The primary endpoints were fetal loss and preterm delivery. RESULTS: After screening 801 studies, 22 comparative cohort studies were included in the analysis, which involved 4694 women, of whom 905 underwent LAs and 3789 underwent OAs. Fetal loss was significantly higher among those who underwent LAs compared with those who underwent OAs, and the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22–2.42) without heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size was influenced by one of the studies, because its removal resulted in there being no significant difference between LA and OA with respect to the risk of fetal loss (OR 1.163, 95% CI: 0.68–1.99; P = 0.581). A significant difference was not evident between LA and OA with respect to preterm delivery (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.51–1.15), a result that did not change following the sensitivity analysis. The patients who underwent LA had shorter hospital stays (mean difference − 1.01, 95% CI: -1.61–-0.41) and a lower wound infection risk (OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21–0.76) compared with those who underwent OA. CONCLUSION: It is not reasonable to conclude that LA in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss. The difference between LA and OA with respect to preterm delivery was not significant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6482586
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64825862019-05-02 Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis Lee, Seung Hwan Lee, Jin Young Choi, Yoon Young Lee, Jae Gil BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Recently, laparoscopic appendectomies (LAs) have been widely performed instead of open appendectomies (OAs) during pregnancy. However, concerns about the safety of LA during pregnancy remain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the current evidence relating to the safety of LA versus OA for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles describing LA versus OA in pregnancy, without restrictions regarding the publication date. The primary endpoints were fetal loss and preterm delivery. RESULTS: After screening 801 studies, 22 comparative cohort studies were included in the analysis, which involved 4694 women, of whom 905 underwent LAs and 3789 underwent OAs. Fetal loss was significantly higher among those who underwent LAs compared with those who underwent OAs, and the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22–2.42) without heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size was influenced by one of the studies, because its removal resulted in there being no significant difference between LA and OA with respect to the risk of fetal loss (OR 1.163, 95% CI: 0.68–1.99; P = 0.581). A significant difference was not evident between LA and OA with respect to preterm delivery (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.51–1.15), a result that did not change following the sensitivity analysis. The patients who underwent LA had shorter hospital stays (mean difference − 1.01, 95% CI: -1.61–-0.41) and a lower wound infection risk (OR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21–0.76) compared with those who underwent OA. CONCLUSION: It is not reasonable to conclude that LA in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss. The difference between LA and OA with respect to preterm delivery was not significant. BioMed Central 2019-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6482586/ /pubmed/31023289 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-019-0505-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lee, Seung Hwan
Lee, Jin Young
Choi, Yoon Young
Lee, Jae Gil
Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title_full Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title_fullStr Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title_short Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
title_sort laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31023289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-019-0505-9
work_keys_str_mv AT leeseunghwan laparoscopicappendectomyversusopenappendectomyforsuspectedappendicitisduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandupdatedmetaanalysis
AT leejinyoung laparoscopicappendectomyversusopenappendectomyforsuspectedappendicitisduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandupdatedmetaanalysis
AT choiyoonyoung laparoscopicappendectomyversusopenappendectomyforsuspectedappendicitisduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandupdatedmetaanalysis
AT leejaegil laparoscopicappendectomyversusopenappendectomyforsuspectedappendicitisduringpregnancyasystematicreviewandupdatedmetaanalysis