Clinical Predictive Factors Affecting Laparoscopic Approach in the Management of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Q4 Medicine
N. Al-Husban, F. Thekrallah, Aymen M. Qatawneh, Dania Al-Ramahi, Rama Al-Ashqar, Balqees Faraj, Mirona Asfour, F. Khreisat
{"title":"Clinical Predictive Factors Affecting Laparoscopic Approach in the Management of Ectopic Pregnancy: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"N. Al-Husban, F. Thekrallah, Aymen M. Qatawneh, Dania Al-Ramahi, Rama Al-Ashqar, Balqees Faraj, Mirona Asfour, F. Khreisat","doi":"10.35516/jmj.v57i3.1675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Ectopic pregnancy accounts for approximately 2% of all pregnancies and is the most common cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the first trimester. Our aim was to study the preoperative clinical factors affecting the choice of laparoscopic approach to tubal ectopic pregnancy.  \nMaterials and methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of tubal ectopic pregnancy cases that were managed by laparoscopy at an academic university hospital in the period January 2010 to December 2018. Cases that were managed medically or conservatively and laparoscopic cases that were converted to laparotomy were excluded. Cases where the surgical approach of laparoscopy or laparotomy were determined by the patients’ choice were also excluded. \nResults: The laparoscopy rate was 49.4%. The mean age was 32.04 years. Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy was significantly associated with low parity (less than 3) (p=0.008), a low level of initial beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (p=0.032), fewer cases of adnexal mass (p=0.000451), hemoperitoneum (p=0.000072), ruptured ectopic (p=0.000261), and more cases of bowel adhesions (p=0.0095). There was no significant difference between laparoscopy and laparotomy regarding the risk factors of ectopic pregnancy. Salpingectomy and salpingostomy were not significantly different between the two surgical approaches (p=0.643). Twenty-eight laparoscopic cases were converted to laparotomy. \nConclusion: The laparoscopic approach to ectopic pregnancy was affected by parity, presenting symptoms of pain and vomiting, mean initial beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin, the presence of adnexal mass, the presence of hemoperitoneum, and the rupture of the ectopic. Bowel adhesions were seen more frequently in laparoscopy than laparotomy. Salpingectomy and salpingostomy were no different between laparoscopy and laparotomy.","PeriodicalId":39681,"journal":{"name":"Jordan Medical Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jordan Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35516/jmj.v57i3.1675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Ectopic pregnancy accounts for approximately 2% of all pregnancies and is the most common cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the first trimester. Our aim was to study the preoperative clinical factors affecting the choice of laparoscopic approach to tubal ectopic pregnancy.  Materials and methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of tubal ectopic pregnancy cases that were managed by laparoscopy at an academic university hospital in the period January 2010 to December 2018. Cases that were managed medically or conservatively and laparoscopic cases that were converted to laparotomy were excluded. Cases where the surgical approach of laparoscopy or laparotomy were determined by the patients’ choice were also excluded. Results: The laparoscopy rate was 49.4%. The mean age was 32.04 years. Compared with laparotomy, laparoscopy was significantly associated with low parity (less than 3) (p=0.008), a low level of initial beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (p=0.032), fewer cases of adnexal mass (p=0.000451), hemoperitoneum (p=0.000072), ruptured ectopic (p=0.000261), and more cases of bowel adhesions (p=0.0095). There was no significant difference between laparoscopy and laparotomy regarding the risk factors of ectopic pregnancy. Salpingectomy and salpingostomy were not significantly different between the two surgical approaches (p=0.643). Twenty-eight laparoscopic cases were converted to laparotomy. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach to ectopic pregnancy was affected by parity, presenting symptoms of pain and vomiting, mean initial beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin, the presence of adnexal mass, the presence of hemoperitoneum, and the rupture of the ectopic. Bowel adhesions were seen more frequently in laparoscopy than laparotomy. Salpingectomy and salpingostomy were no different between laparoscopy and laparotomy.
影响腹腔镜入路治疗异位妊娠的临床预测因素:一项回顾性横断面研究
引言:异位妊娠约占所有妊娠的2%,是妊娠早期妊娠相关死亡的最常见原因。我们的目的是研究影响输卵管异位妊娠腹腔镜入路选择的术前临床因素。材料和方法:这是一项对2010年1月至2018年12月期间在一所大学医院通过腹腔镜治疗的输卵管异位妊娠病例的回顾性横断面研究。排除了经医学或保守治疗的病例和转为剖腹手术的腹腔镜病例。腹腔镜或剖腹手术的手术方法由患者的选择决定的病例也被排除在外。结果:腹腔镜手术成功率为49.4%,平均年龄32.04岁。与剖腹手术相比,腹腔镜检查与低产次(小于3次)(p=0.008)、低初始β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素水平(p=0.032)、较少的附件肿块(p=0.000451)、腹腔积血(p=0.00072)、异位破裂(p=0.000261)、,以及更多的肠粘连病例(p=0.0095)。腹腔镜和剖腹手术在异位妊娠的危险因素方面没有显著差异。输卵管切除术和输卵管造口术在两种手术方法之间没有显著差异(p=0.643)。28例腹腔镜病例转为剖腹手术。结论:腹腔镜治疗异位妊娠受产程、疼痛和呕吐症状、平均初始β-人绒毛膜促性腺激素、附件包块、腹腔积血和异位破裂的影响。腹腔镜检查发现肠粘连的频率高于剖腹手术。输卵管切除术和输卵管造口术在腹腔镜和剖腹手术中没有区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Jordan Medical Journal
Jordan Medical Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信