• Skip to main content
  • Skip to header right navigation
  • Skip to site footer

Log in
  • Search
    • Search All SAGES Content
    • Search SAGES Guidelines
    • Search the Video Library
    • Search the Image Library
    • Search the Abstracts Archive
www.sages.org

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • MIS Fellows Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • OWLS/FLS
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Trends in Laparoscopy: Study of 1,999 Pregnant Patients

Trends in Laparoscopy: Study of 1,999 Pregnant Patients

Tiffany C Cox, MD, Ciara R Huntington, MD, Laurel J Blair, MD, Tanushree Prasad, MA, Vedra A Augenstein, MD, FACS, B. Todd Heniford, MD, FACS. Carolinas Medical Center

Introduction: When pregnant patients require surgery, whether to perform operations open or laparoscopic is often debated. We studied the impact of laparoscopy for common general surgical problems in pregnancy to determine safety and trends of application over time.

Methods: Pregnant 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, smoking, and perforation.

Results: A total of 1,999 pregnant patients between 2005-2012 were evaluated. Of 1,335 appendectomies: 894 were laparoscopic(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 27.8 years(p=0.19), diabetes(1.8%vs0.9%,p=0.24), smoking(19%vs16.1%,p=0.2)] except for BMI(27.9vs28.4kg/m2,p=0.03). LA had shorter operative times(OT), length of stay(LOS), and fewer postoperative complications compared to OA(Table 1). MVA for perforated cases alone, LA had less OT(<0.001) and LOS(p=0.009). The majority of LA were performed in the last 4 years vs first 4 years(61%vs39%,p<0.001).

For LC versus OC, patient characteristics were not different: age 28.3 years(p=0.33), BMI(31.4vs33.2kg/m2,p=0.25), diabetes(2.8%vs3.5%,p=0.68), and smoking(21.1%vs25.9%,p=0.4). LC also had a shorter OT, LOS, and fewer postoperative complications than OC(Table 2). On MVA, difference between approaches remained statistically significant for OT(<0.001), LOS(<0.01), and wound complications(<0.05). In complicated cholecystitis with perforation, LC had less LOS(p=0.047) yet similar OT(p=0.07); no difference in postoperative complications. The percentage of LC cases appeared to increase over time(89%vs93%,p=0.06).

Conclusion: While fetal events are unknown, LA and LC in pregnant patients demonstrated shorter OT, LOS, reduced wound complications, and were performed more frequently over time. Even in perforated cases with infection, laparoscopy appears safer in pregnant patients.

Table 1. Patient Outcomes for Appendectomy. (SSI=surgical site infection)
Laparoscopic n(%) Open n(%) p value
Operative Time(minutes) 47.1±20.2 52.1±25.1 <0.001
Length of Stay(days) 2.3±5.8 3.3±2.5 <0.001
Perforation 492(55) 278(63) 0.005
Superficial SSI 4(0.5) 13(3.0) <0.001
Deep SSI 2(0.2) 3(0.7) 0.34
Wound Complications 6(0.7) 17(3.9) <0.001
Minor Complications 25(2.8) 24(5.4) 0.02
Table 2.Patient Outcomes for Cholecystectomy.
Laparoscopic n(%) Open n(%) p value
Operative Time(minutes) 64.4±29.7 111±82.3 <0.001
Length of Stay(days) 3±4.1 6.5±7.8 <0.001
Peforation 132(21.8) 19(32.8) 0.056
Superficial SSI 4(0.7) 2(3.5) 0.09
Deep SSI 0 0 –
Wound Complications 4(0.7) 2(3.5) 0.09
Minor complications 10(1.7) 4(6.9) 0.03
53

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky

Related


sages_adbutler_leaderboard

Hours & Info

11300 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064

1-310-437-0544

[email protected]

Monday – Friday
8am to 5pm Pacific Time

Find Us Around the Web!

  • Bluesky
  • X
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2025 · SAGES · All Rights Reserved

Important Links

Healthy Sooner: Patient Information

SAGES Guidelines, Statements, & Standards of Practice

SAGES Manuals