Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment, and Use of Laparoscopy for Surgical Problems during Pregnancy

Preamble

Early concerns about the performance of laparoscopic surgery performed on pregnant patients centered around the potential risk to the fetus due to trocar insertion, CO2 insufflation, and the technical ability to obtain proper operative exposure with a gravid uterus. Additionally, risks to the mother that were thought to be important included altered physiology of pneumoperitoneum and decreased venous return to the heart. There has been accumulating evidence to suggest that clinical outcomes are equivalent to open surgical techniques, while conferring all the advantages of the laparoscopic approach.

This document provides specific recommendations and guidelines to assist physicians in the diagnostic work-up and treatment of surgical problems in pregnant patients focusing on the use of laparoscopy. Surgical interventions during pregnancy should minimize fetal risk without compromising the safety of the mother.

Disclaimer

Guidelines for clinical practice are intended to indicate preferable approaches to medical problems as established by experts in the field. These recommendations will be based on existing data or a consensus of expert opinion when little or no data are available. Guidelines are applicable to all physicians who address the clinical problem(s) without regard to specialty training or interests, and are intended to indicate the preferable, but not necessarily the only acceptable approaches. Guidelines are intended to be flexible. Given the wide range of specifics in any health care problem, the surgeon must always choose the course best suited to the individual patient and the variables in existence at the moment of decision.

Guidelines are developed under the auspices of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons and its various committees, and approved by the Board of Governors. Each clinical practice guideline has been systematically researched, reviewed and revised by the guidelines committee, and reviewed by an appropriate multidisciplinary team. The recommendations are therefore considered valid at the time of its production based on the data available. Each guideline is scheduled for periodic review to allow incorporation of pertinent new developments in medical research knowledge, and practice.

I. Introduction

Approximately 1 in 500 to 1 in 635 women will require non-obstetrical abdominal surgery during their pregnancy [1, 2]. The most common non-obstetrical surgical emergencies complicating pregnancy are acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, and intestinal obstruction [1] . Other conditions that may require surgery during pregnancy include ovarian cysts, masses or torsion, symptomatic cholelithiasis, adrenal tumors, splenic disorders, symptomatic hernias, complications of inflammatory bowel diseases, and abdominal pain of unknown etiology. All of these diseases are routinely treated using laparoscopic techniques in the non-pregnant patient with good outcomes.

During its infancy, some argued that laparoscopy was contraindicated during pregnancy. Many now utilize laparoscopy as an alternative to open surgery in order to provide the pregnant patient with the same benefits of a minimally invasive approach that non-pregnant patients have realized. Many of the issues related to the minimally invasive approach for surgical treatment of diseases during pregnancy have been clarified with the accumulation of data from its increased use and acceptance during pregnancy [3].

II. Definitions

Provided by SAGES

III. Diagnosis and Workup

Abdominal pain in the gravid patient presents a dilemma in which the clinician must weigh the risks and benefits of potential diagnostic modalities and therapy not only to the mother but also to the fetus. The clinical issues and pathological conditions differ between the trimesters of pregnancy. These guidelines assume intrauterine pregnancy has been confirmed. An underlying principle to the workup of abdominal pain was stated by Sir Zachary Cope in 1921, “Earlier diagnosis means better prognosis.” [4]. Although fetal safety during diagnostic imaging is an important goal for clinicians and patients, the benefits to the mother outweigh the risk to the fetus, bearing in mind that the risk of fetal morbidity and mortality also increases when the mother is faced with an acute surgical disease.

A. Imaging Techniques

A risk-benefit discussion with the patient should be undertaken prior to initiating any diagnostic study.

Ultrasound

Guideline 1: Ultrasonographic imaging during pregnancy is safe and useful in identifying the etiology of acute abdominal pain in the pregnant patient (Level II, Grade A).

Abdominal pain in the pregnant patient can be separated into gynecologic and non-gynecologic causes. When radiographic studies are needed ultrasound is widely considered safe for the mother and fetus with relatively high sensitivity and specificity for many intra-abdominal processes. No maternal or fetal adverse effects have been reported. It is the radiographic test of choice for most gynecologic causes of abdominal pain including adnexal mass, torsion, placental abruption, placenta previa, uterine rupture and fetal demise. Ultrasound is also useful as a first line diagnostic study for many non-gynecologic causes of abdominal pain, allowing the practitioner to potentially avoid the need for ionizing radiation exposure [5-11].

Risk of Ionizing Radiation

Guideline 2: Expeditious and accurate diagnosis should take precedence over concerns for ionizing radiation. Radiation dosage should be limited to 5-10 rads in the first 25 weeks of pregnancy (Level III, Grade B).

Significant radiation exposure may lead to chromosomal mutations, neurologic abnormalities, mental retardation, and increase the risk of childhood leukemia. Radiation dosage is the most important risk factor but fetal age at exposure is also important [7, 8, 12]. Radiological exposure is measured using units of either rad or centiGrey (1 rad = 1 cGy). Fetal mortality is greatest when exposure occurs within the first week of conception prior to oocyte implantation. It has been recommended that the cumulative radiation dose from the first week of conception through week 25 be less than 5-10 rads [13]. The most sensitive time period for CNS teratogenesis is between 10 and 17 weeks gestation and non-urgent x-rays should be avoided during this time. In later pregnancy the concern shifts from teratogenesis to increasing the risk of childhood hematologic cancer. The background incidence of childhood cancer and leukemia is approximately 0.2 -0.3%. Radiation may increase that incidence by 0.06% per 1 rad delivered to the fetus [13]. Exposure of the fetus to 0.5 rad increases the risk of spontaneous abortion, major malformations, mental retardation, and childhood malignancy to one additional case in 6,000 above baseline risk. It has been suggested that fetal risk is negligible at 5 rads or less and that the risk of malformation is significantly increased at doses above 15 rads. The accepted cumulative dose of ionizing radiation during pregnancy is 5-10 rads with no single diagnostic study exceeding 5 rads [8, 12-17].

Computed Tomography

Guideline 3: Contemporary multi-detector CT protocols deliver a radiation dose to the fetus below detrimental levels and may be considered as an appropriate test during pregnancy depending on the clinical situation (Level III, Grade B).

Computed tomography (CT) has a well-established role as a diagnostic modality in the non-pregnant patient. Many of the same non-obstetric indications for its use can also be found in a woman during pregnancy [18]. Employment of the CT scan should be weighed against the cumulative radiation exposure to the fetus. As a single test radiation exposure to the fetus is highest when a full scan of the abdomen and pelvis is obtained, reaching exposure levels up to 2-4 rads for a single study [7, 19, 20], which falls below the maximum recommended dose of 5 rads for a single study. Advancements in CT technology and protocols have led to decreased radiation doses. These levels vary by institution and the practitioner should be aware of the potential radiation exposure.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Guideline 4: MR Imaging can be performed at any stage of pregnancy without the use of intravenous Gadolinium (Level III, Grade B).

MRI provides excellent soft-tissue multiplanar imaging without ionizing radiation. It is generally considered safe in pregnancy as no ionizing radiation is employed, although further research is needed. It should be used after a clinical risk-benefit analysis is discussed between the clinician and the patient [21-25]. Intravenous Gadolinium agents do cross the placenta and any effects are not fully understood, therefore its use during pregnancy is controversial [22].

Nuclear Medicine

Guideline 5: Nuclear Medicine administration of radio nucleotides can generally be accomplished at fetal radiation levels of exposure that are well below any known detrimental levels (Level III, Grade C).

Radiopharmaceuticals, including technetium-99m, can generally be administered at doses that provide whole fetal exposure of less than 0.5 rad [26], well within the known safe range of fetal exposure. Consultation with a nuclear medicine radiologist or technologist should be considered prior to performing the study. The study should be commensurate with the most expeditious and accurate method of securing the suspected diagnosis.

Cholangiography

Guideline 6: Intra-operative and endoscopic cholangiography exposes the mother and fetus to minimal radiation and may be used selectively during pregnancy. The lower abdomen should be shielded when performing cholangiography during pregnancy to decrease the radiation exposure to the fetus (Level III, Grade B).

Radiation exposure during cholangiography is estimated to be less than 0.5 rads. Fluoroscopy generally delivers a radiation dose of up to 20 rads/minute, but varies depending on the x-ray equipment utilized, patient positioning and patient size. Radiation exposure is cumulative, suggesting that a selective approach to exposure of the pregnant patient to fluoroscopy is prudent. During cholangiography, the fetus should be shielded as able. Placing a lead apron inside an impermeable sterile drape during surgery is helpful in accomplishing this goal. No adverse effects have been reported from cholangiography specifically.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is an alternative approach, but is only diagnostic and accuracy will vary amongst institutions. These facts should be considered when selecting this approach.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), also has risks beyond the radiation exposure such as bleeding and pancreatitis. In non-pregnant patients, the risk of bleeding is 1.3% and risk of pancreatitis is 3.5%[27]. These additional risks warrant the same careful risk-benefit analysis and discussion with the patient as other operative and procedural interventions [7, 16, 28, 29].

Alternatives to fluoroscopy include intra-operative ultrasound and choledochoscopy. These are both acceptable methods provided the surgeon has the appropriate equipment and skills to expeditiously and accurately perform the examinations.

B. Surgical Techniques

Guideline 7: Diagnostic laparoscopy is safe and effective when used selectively in the workup and treatment of acute abdominal processes in pregnancy (Level II, Grade B).

Diagnostic laparoscopy provides direct visualization of intra-abdominal organs. While not enough data are available to recommend this as a primary diagnostic approach in the pregnant patient, it is certainly a reasonable alternative. The benefits of operative exploration are avoidance of ionizing radiation, rapidity and diagnostic accuracy, as well as the ability to treat a surgical problem at the time of diagnosis. Additionally, it has been shown that laparoscopy can be performed safely during any trimester of pregnancy with minimal morbidity to the fetus and mother [30-42].

IV. Patient Selection

Pre-operative Decision Making

Guideline 8: Laparoscopic treatment of acute abdominal processes has the same indications in pregnant and non-pregnant patients (Level II, Grade B).

Once the decision to operate has been made, the surgical approach (laparotomy vs. laparoscopy) should be determined based on the skills of the surgeon as well as the availability of the appropriate staff and equipment. Appropriate discussion with the patient regarding the risks and benefits of surgical intervention should be undertaken. Benefits of laparoscopy during pregnancy appear similar to those benefits in non-pregnant patients including less postoperative pain, less postoperative ileus, decreased length of hospital stays and faster return to work [31, 36, 43-46].

Laparoscopy and Trimester of Pregnancy

Guideline 9: Laparoscopy can be safely performed during any trimester of pregnancy (Level II, Grade B).

Operative intervention may be performed in any trimester if warranted by the patient’s condition. Historical recommendations, which were based on experiences with open surgical procedures during pregnancy, were to delay surgery until the second trimester. These recommendations were thought to minimize the spontaneous abortion rate of surgical intervention during the first trimester which has been reported to be as high as 12% and to avoid preterm labor (up to 40%) when surgery occurs during the third trimester [47]. This experience has not been reproduced in more recent literature reporting on laparoscopic cases. Several recent studies have shown that pregnant patients may undergo laparoscopic surgery safely during any trimester without any appreciated increased risk to the mother or fetus [30, 31, 46, 48-51]. It has been suggested that delaying surgical intervention in patients with symptomatic gallstone disease during pregnancy may lead to further complications of gallstone disease such as acute cholecystitis and gallstone pancreatitis [48, 52-54] which can lead to higher spontaneous abortion rates and preterm labor.

It has been suggested that the gestational age limit for successful completion of laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy is 26 to 28 weeks [35]. This has been refuted by several studies in which laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendectomy have been successfully performed late in the third trimester [49, 51, 55, 56].

Although laparoscopy can be performed safely in pregnancy with good fetal and maternal outcomes, the long-term effects to the children have not been well studied. One recent study evaluated eleven children from one to eight years and found no growth or developmental delay [42].

V. Treatment

There are many advantages of laparoscopy in the pregnant patient including: decreased fetal depression due to lessened postoperative narcotic requirements [36, 57-59], lower risk of wound complications [57, 60, 61], diminished postoperative maternal hypoventilation [57, 58], shorter hospital stays, and decreased risks of thromboembolic events due to early mobilization. Laparoscopy reduces the risk of uterine irritability by decreasing the need for uterine manipulation because of improved visualization [62]. Decreased uterine irritability results in lower rates of spontaneous abortion and preterm delivery [63].

Patient Positioning

Guideline 10: Gravid patients should be placed in the left lateral recumbent position to minimize compression of the vena cava and the aorta (Level II, Grade B).

When the pregnant patient is placed in a supine position, the gravid uterus places pressure on the inferior vena cava resulting in decreased venous return to the heart. This decrease in venous return results in maternal hypotension, reduction in cardiac output by 10% to 30% and decreased placental perfusion during surgery [64-66]. Placing the patient in a left lateral recumbent position will shift the uterus off the vena cava improving venous return and cardiac output [64, 65].

Initial Port Placement

Guideline 11: Initial access can be safely accomplished with open (Hassan), Verres needle or optical trocar technique if the location is adjusted according to fundal height, previous incisions and experience of the surgeon (Level III, Grade B).

There has been much debate regarding abdominal access in the pregnant patient with preferences toward either a Hassan technique or Verres needle. The concern for use of the Verres needle technique has largely been based on concerns for higher likelihood of injury to the uterus or other intra-abdominal organs as fundal height increases [67, 68]. Because the intra-abdominal domain is altered by the increasing fundal height adaptation of the initial access site from the umbilicus to subcostal regions as the uterus enlarges in the second and third trimester has been recommended [49, 51, 55, 62]. If the site of initial abdominal access is adjusted according to fundal height and the abdominal wall is elevated during insertion, both the Hassan technique and Verres needle can be safely and effectively utilized [49, 51, 69].

It has also been recommended that placement of trocars is adjusted according to fundal height and that they are inserted under direct visualization [70, 71]. Ultrasound guided trocar placement has been described in the literature as an additional method to visualize trocar placement [72].

Insufflation Pressure

Guideline 12: CO2 insufflation of 10-15 mmHg can be safely used for laparoscopy in the pregnant patient. Intra-abdominal pressure should be sufficient to allow for adequate visualization (Level III, Grade C).

The potential effects of CO2 insufflation on the pregnant patient and her fetus have led to apprehension over its use. The pulmonary effects of pneumoperitoneum in the pregnant patient and the potential risk for acidosis to the fetus have caused concern and have led some investigators to develop alternative approaches of gasless laparoscopy, but these have not been widely adopted [73-80].

The pregnant patient’s diaphragm is upwardly displaced by the growing fetus, which results in decreased residual lung volume and functional residual capacity making her more susceptible to arterial oxygen desaturation [81]. Upward displacement of the diaphragm by pneumoperitoneum is more worrisome in a pregnant patient with existing restrictive pulmonary physiology. Some have recommended intra-abdominal insufflation pressures be maintained at less than 12 mmHg to avoid worsening pulmonary physiology in this population [71, 82]. Others have argued that insufflation less than 12 mmHg may not provide adequate visualization of the intra-abdominal cavity [49, 51]. Pressures of 15 mmHg have been implemented during laparoscopy in pregnant patients without increasing adverse outcomes to the patient or her fetus [49, 51].

Because CO2 exchange occurs with intraperitoneal insufflation, there has been concern for effects to the fetus, specifically the effects of acidosis. Some animal studies have confirmed fetal acidosis with associated tachycardia, hypertension and hypercapnia during CO2 pneumoperitoneum [83-85]. Other animal studies have demonstrated no fetal acidosis [86]. Regardless, no long-term adverse effects have been identified [83-86]. Of more interest, there is no evidence to support long term detrimental effects resulting from CO2 pneumoperitoneum in humans [35].

Intra-operative CO2 Monitoring

Guideline 13: Intra-operative CO2 monitoring by capnography should be used during laparoscopy in the pregnant patient (Level III, Grade C).

Fetal acidosis and associated fetal instability in CO2 pneumoperitoneum have been documented in animal studies, though no long-term effects from these changes have been identified [83-85, 87]. Fetal acidosis with insufflation has not been documented in the human fetus, but concerns over potential detrimental effects of acidosis have led to the recommendation of maternal CO2 monitoring [88, 89]. Initially, there was debate over maternal blood gas monitoring of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO2) versus end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) monitoring, but the less invasive capnography has been demonstrated to adequately reflect maternal acid/base status in humans [90]. Several large studies have documented the safety and efficacy of EtCO2 measurements in pregnant women [35, 49, 51] making routine blood gas monitoring unnecessary.

Venous Thromboembolic (VTE) Prophylaxis

Guideline 14: Intra-operative and post-operative pneumatic compression devices and early post-operative ambulation are recommended prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis in the gravid patient (Level III, Grade C).

Pregnancy is a hypercoagulable state with a 0.1-0.2% incidence of deep venous thrombosis [91]. CO2 pneumoperitoneum may increase the risk of deep venous thrombosis by increasing venous stasis. Even insufflation of 12 mmHg causes a statistically significant decrease in blood flow that cannot be completely reversed with intermittent pneumatic compression devices or intermittent electric calf stimulators [92]. There is unfortunately a paucity of research on prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis in the pregnant patient. Because of the increased risk of thrombosis, prophylaxis with pneumatic compression devices both intra-operatively and post-operatively and early postoperative ambulation are recommended as they are in the non-pregnant patient. There is no data regarding use of unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin for prophylaxis in pregnant patients undergoing laparoscopy, though its use has been suggested in patients undergoing extended major surgery [93]. In patients that require anticoagulation during pregnancy, heparin has proven safe with monitoring and is the agent of choice [94].

Gallbladder Disease

Guideline 15: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice in the pregnant patient with gallbladder disease regardless of trimester (Level II, Grade B).

Management of symptomatic cholelithiasis in pregnancy has been controversial with some recommending initial non-operative management [52, 95-97]. Those in favor of early surgical management are supported by the recurrence of symptomatic gallstones during pregnancy in 92% of patients managed non-operatively who present in the first trimester, 64% presenting in the second, and 44% in the third [98]. More important than recurrence, this delay in surgical management results in significant morbidity including; increased hospitalizations, spontaneous abortions, preterm labor, and preterm delivery compared to those undergoing cholecystectomy [39, 40, 52, 88-91. In addition, non-operative management boasts a reported 57% symptom recurrence during pregnancy in patients with biliary colic and a 23% complication rate of acute cholecystitis and gallstone pancreatitis [48]. Gallstone pancreatitis results in fetal loss in 10% to 60% of pregnant patients [99, 100]. The significant morbidity and mortality associated with gallbladder disease in the gravid patient argue in favor of surgical management. When compared to open cholecystectomy, the laparoscopic approach has equivalent outcomes and the well established added benefits of laparosopy [50]. Improved outcomes with decreased risk of spontaneous abortion and preterm labor have been reported in laparoscopic cholecystectomy when compared to laparotomy [101].

Choledocholithiasis

Guideline 16: Choledocholithiasis during pregnancy may be managed with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intra-operative laparoscopic transcystic or choledochotomy common bile duct exploration, or post-operative ERCP depending on local resources and clinical scenario (Level III, Grade C).

Complications associated with choledocholithiasis are relatively uncommon during pregnancy [102, 103]. However, these complications can result in significant morbidity and mortality making appropriate management of these patients important. Unfortunately, there have been no trials comparing common bile duct exploration at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography followed by cholecystectomy. Good outcomes have been described with intra-operative common bile duct exploration, but few cases have been reported [104]. Multiple studies have demonstrated safe and effective management of common bile duct stones with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy and subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy [105-110].

Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Guideline 17: Laparoscopic appendectomy may be performed safely in pregnant patients with suspicion of appendicitis (Level II, Grade B).

Laparoscopic appendectomy has become increasingly utilized in the gravid patient since its introduction and is considered by many to be the standard of care [49, 51, 111-115]. Diagnosis of appendicitis is thought to be complicated by the anatomic changes and leukocytosis associated with pregnancy [116-119]. A recent article, however, has shown that the majority (> 83%) of gravid patients with acute appendicitis present with classic right lower quadrant pain [120]. Negative appendectomy rates in the gravid patient have been reported as high as 22% to 55% [32, 69]. These high negative appendectomy rates may be due to the surgeon’s propensity to prevent perforation and avoid unnecessary morbidity and mortality.

When the diagnosis of appendicitis by ultrasound is equivocal, promptly proceeding to diagnostic laparoscopy or CT scan may allow for early identification and intervention in appendicitis decreasing the rate of perforation. 25% of all pregnant women who have acute appendicits will develop perforated appendicitis [121, 122]. A 66 % perforation incidence has been reported when surgery is delayed by more than 24 hours compared to 0% incidence when surgical management is initiated prior to 24 hours of presentation [123]. Of note, perforation of the appendix occurs twice as often in the third trimester (69%) compared to the first and second trimesters [124].

Solid Organ Resection

Guideline 18: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy, nephrectomy and splenectomy are safe procedures in pregnant patients when indicated and standard precautions are taken (Level III, Grade C).

After successful laparoscopic management of appendicitis and gallbladder disease in pregnancy, surgeons began exploring laparoscopy in the management of other surgical diseases that arise in pregnancy. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy during pregnancy has proven effective in the management of primary hyperaldosteronism [125], Cushing’s syndrome [126-128], and pheochromocytoma [129-134]. Laparoscopic splenectomy has also become an increasingly accepted surgical approach in pregnancy [135]. Gravid patients with antiphospholipid syndrome [136], hereditary spherocytosis [137], and autoimmune thrombocytopenia purpura [135, 138, 139] have undergone laparoscopic splenectomy with excellent outcomes for mother and fetus. More recently, two cases of laparoscopic nephrectomy have been reported in the first and second trimester without any associated complications and both infants were born healthy at term [140, 141].

Adnexal Masses

Guideline 19: Laparoscopy is safe and effective treatment in gravid patients with symptomatic cystic masses. Observation is acceptable for all other cystic lesions provided ultrasound is non-worrisome for malignancy and tumor markers are normal. adnexal masses. Initial observation is warranted for most cystic lesions < 6 cm in size (Level III, Grade C).

The incidence of adnexal masses during pregnancy is 2% [142]. Most of these adnexal masses discovered during the first trimester are functional cysts that resolve spontaneously by the second trimester [70]. Expectant management has been recommended for < 6cm adnexal masses in the pregnant patient based on an 82% [143] to 94% [144] rate of spontaneous resolution. Persistent masses are most commonly functional cysts or mature cystic teratomas with the incidence of malignancy reported at 2% to 6% [145]. Historically, the concern over malignant potential and risks associated with emergency surgery have led to elective removal of masses that persist at 16 weeks and are > 6 cm in diameter [144-146]. However, recent literature supports the safety of close observation in these patients when ultrasound findings are not concerning for malignancy, tumor markers are normal (CA125, LDH) and the patient is asymptomatic[147-150]. In the event that surgery is indicated, various case reports support the use of laparoscopy in the management of adnexal masses [151-159] in every trimester [160-163]. Perhaps more informative, a retrospective review of 88 pregnant women demonstrated equivalent maternal and fetal outcomes in adnexal masses managed laparoscopically and by laparotomy [62],

Adnexal Torsion

Guideline 20: Laparoscopy is recommended for both diagnosis and treatment of adnexal torsion unless clinical severity warrants laparotomy (Level III, Grade C).

Ten to 15% of adnexal masses undergo torsion [164]. Laparoscopy is the preferred method of both diagnosis and treatment in the gravid patient with adnexal torsion [165]. Multiple case reports have confirmed safety and efficacy of laparoscopy for adnexal torsion in pregnant patients [166-170]. If diagnosed before tissue necrosis, adnexal torsion may be managed by simple laparoscopic adnexal detorsion [171]. However, with late diagnosis of torsion adnexal infarction may ensue, which left untreated can result in peritonitis, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery and death [146, 172]. The gangrenous adnexa should be completely resected [173] and progesterone therapy initiated after removal of the corpus luteum if less than 12 weeks gestation [171]. Laparotomy may be necessary as dictated by the patient’s clinical severity and intra-operative findings [122].

VI. Peri-operative Care

Fetal Heart Monitoring

Guideline 21: Fetal heart monitoring should occur pre and postoperatively in the setting of urgent abdominal surgery during pregnancy (Level III, Grade B).

While intra-operative fetal heart rate monitoring was once thought to be the most accurate method to detect fetal distress during laparoscopy, no intra-operative fetal heart rate abnormalities have been reported in the literature [48, 101]. This has led some to recommend preoperative and postoperative monitoring of the fetal heart rate with no increased fetal morbidity having been reported [49, 51].

Obstetrical Consultation

Guideline 22: Obstetric consultation can be obtained pre and/or postoperatively based on the acuteness of the patient’s disease, gestational age and availability of the consultant (Level III, Grade C).

Maternal and fetal monitoring should be part of any pregnant patient’s care and continue throughout their hospitalization, but the timing of a formal obstetric consultation will vary based on availability and the acuteness of the patient’s condition. Delaying the treatment of an acute abdominal process to obtain such a consultation should be avoided as treatment delay may increase the risk of morbidity and mortality to the mother and fetus [174].

Tocolytics

Guideline 23: Tocolytics should not be used prophylactically, but should be considered peri-operatively when signs of preterm labor are present in coordination with obstetric consultation (Level I, Grade A).

Threatened preterm labor can be successfully managed with tocolytic therapy. The specific agent and indications for the use of tocolytics should be individualized. An obstetric consultation may be necessary as controversy exists over which of several agents is the preferred [175-178]. No literature supports the use of prophylactic tocolytics.

VII. Summary of Recommendations

More information has accumulated recently as laparoscopy has become more common during pregnancy. However, most of the data is found in case series and retrospective reviews which limit the ability to provide absolute guidelines. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify these guidelines, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. The current recommendations for laparoscopy during surgery are:

Diagnosis and Workup

A. Imaging Techniques

Ultrasound

Guideline 1: Ultrasonographic imaging during pregnancy is safe and useful in identifying the etiology of acute abdominal pain in the pregnant patient (Level II, Grade A).

Risk of Ionizing Radiation

Guideline 2: Expeditious and accurate diagnosis should take precedence over concerns for ionizing radiation. Radiation dosage should be limited to 5-10 rads in the first 25 weeks of pregnancy (Level III, Grade B).

Computed Tomography

Guideline 3: Contemporary multi-detector CT protocols deliver a radiation dose to the fetus below detrimental levels and may be considered as an appropriate test during pregnancy depending on the clinical situation (Level III, Grade B).

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Guideline 4: MR Imaging can be performed at any stage of pregnancy without intravenous Gadolinium (Level III, Grade B).

Nuclear Medicine

Guideline 5: Nuclear Medicine administration of radionucleotides can generally be accomplished at fetal radiation levels of exposure that are well below any known detrimental levels (Level III, Grade C).

Cholangiography

Guideline 6: Intra-operative and endoscopic cholangiography exposes the mother and fetus to minimal radiation and may be used selectively during pregnancy. The lower abdomen should be shielded when performing cholangiography during pregnancy to decrease the radiation exposure to the fetus (Level III, Grade B).

B. Surgical techniques

Guideline 7: Diagnostic laparoscopy is safe and effective when used selectively in the workup and treatment of acute abdominal processes in pregnancy (Level II, Grade B).

Patient Selection

Pre-operative Decision Making

Guideline 8: Laparoscopic treatment of acute abdominal processes has the same indications in pregnant and non-pregnant patients (Level II, Grade B).

Laparoscopy and Trimester of Pregnancy

Guideline 9: Laparoscopy can be safely performed during any trimester of pregnancy (Level II, Grade B).

Treatment

Patient Positioning

Guideline 10: Gravid patients should be placed in the left lateral recumbent position to minimize compression of the vena cava and the aorta (Level II, Grade B).

Initial Port Placement

Guideline 11: Initial access can be safely accomplished with an open or Hassan, Verres needle or optical trocar if the location is adjusted according to fundal height, previous incisions and experience of the surgeon (Level III, Grade B).

Insufflation Pressure

Guideline 12: CO2 insufflation of 10-15 mmHg can be safely used for laparoscopy in the pregnant patient. Intra-abdominal pressure should be sufficient to allow for adequate visualization (Level III, Grade C).

Intra-operative CO2 monitoring

Guideline 13: Intra-operative CO2 monitoring by capnography should be used during laparoscopy in the pregnant patient (Level III, Grade C).

Venous Thromboembolic (VTE) Prophylaxis

Guideline 14: Intra-operative and post-operative pneumatic compression devices and early post-operative ambulation are recommended prophylaxis for deep venous thrombosis in the gravid patient (Level III, Grade C).

Gallbladder Disease

Guideline 15: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the treatment of choice in the pregnant patient with gallbladder disease regardless of trimester (Level II, Grade B).

Choledocholithiasis

Guideline 16: Choledocholithiasis during pregnancy may be managed with preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intra-operative laparoscopic transcystic or choledochotomy common bile duct exploration, or post-operative ERCP depending on local resources and clinical scenario (Level III, Grade C).

Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Guideline 17: Laparoscopic appendectomy may be performed safely in any patients with suspicion of appendicitis (Level II, Grade B).

Solid Organ Resection

Guideline 18: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy, nephrectomy, splenectomy and mesenteric cyst excision are safe procedures in pregnant patients when indicated and standard precautions are taken (Level III, Grade C).

Adnexal Mass

Guideline 19 Guideline 19: Laparoscopy is safe and effective treatment in gravid patients with symptomatic cystic masses. Observation is acceptable for all other cystic lesions provided ultrasound is non-worrisome for malignancy and tumor markers are normal. Initial observation is warranted for most cystic lesions < 6 cm in size (Level III, Grade C).

Adnexal Torsion

Guideline 20: Laparoscopy is recommended for both diagnosis and treatment of adnexal torsion unless clinical severity warrants laparotomy (Level III, Grade C).

Peri-operative care

Fetal Heart Monitoring

Guideline 21: Fetal heart monitoring should occur pre and postoperatively in the setting of urgent abdominal surgery during pregnancy (Level III, Grade B).

Obstetrical Consultation

Guideline 22: Obstetric consultation can be obtained pre and/or postoperatively based on the acuteness of the patient’s disease and availability (Level III, Grade B).

Tocolytics

Guideline 23: Tocolytics should not be used prophylactically, but should be considered peri-operatively when signs of preterm labor are present in coordination with obstetric consultation (Level I, Grade A).

REFERENCES

1. Kammerer, W.S., Nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy. Med Clin North Am, 1979. 63(6): p. 1157-64.
2. Kort, B., V.L. Katz, and W.J. Watson, The effect of nonobstetric operation during pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1993. 177(4): p. 371-6.
3. Fallon, W.F., Jr., et al., The surgical management of intra-abdominal inflammatory conditions during pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am, 1995. 75(1): p. 15-31.
4. Baer, J., Appendicitis in pregnancy with changes in position and axis of the normal appendix in pregnancy. JAMA, 1932. 98: p. 1359-1364.
5. Eyvazzadeh, A.D. and D. Levine, Imaging of pelvic pain in the first trimester of pregnancy. Radiol Clin North Am, 2006. 44(6): p. 863-77.
6. Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women. 1977, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report no. 54: Bethesda, MD.
7. Kennedy, A., Assessment of acute abdominal pain in the pregnant patient. Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 2000. 21(1): p. 64-77.
8. Toppenberg, K.S., D.A. Hill, and D.P. Miller, Safety of radiographic imaging during pregnancy. Am Fam Physician, 1999. 59(7): p. 1813-8, 1820.
9. Moore, C. and S.B. Promes, Ultrasound in pregnancy. Emerg Med Clin North Am, 2004. 22(3): p. 697-722.
10. Lim, H.K., S.H. Bae, and G.S. Seo, Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1992. 159(3): p. 539-42.
11. Nelson, M.J., et al., Cysts in pregnancy discovered by sonography. J Clin Ultrasound, 1986. 14(7): p. 509-12.
12. Timins, J.K., Radiation during pregnancy. N J Med, 2001. 98(6): p. 29-33.
13. Karam, P.A., Determining and reporting fetal radiation exposure from diagnostic radiation. Health Phys, 2000. 79(5 Suppl): p. S85-90.
14. Medical radiation exposure of pregnant and potentially pregnant women. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements report No. 54: Bethesda, MD., 1977.
15. Doll, R. and R. Wakeford, Risk of childhood cancer from fetal irradiation. Br J Radiol, 1997. 70: p. 130-9.
16. Osei, E.K. and K. Faulkner, Fetal doses from radiological examinations. Br J Radiol, 1999. 72(860): p. 773-80.
17. Lowe, S.A., Diagnostic radiography in pregnancy: risks and reality. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 2004. 44(3): p. 191-6.
18. Menias, C.O., et al., CT of pregnancy-related complications. Emerg Radiol, 2007.
19. Hurwitz, L.M., et al., Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2006. 186(3): p. 871-6.
20. Forsted, D.H. and C.L. Kalbhen, CT of pregnant women for urinary tract calculi, pulmonary thromboembolism, and acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2002. 178(5): p. 1285.
21. De Wilde, J.P., A.W. Rivers, and D.L. Price, A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol, 2005. 87(2-3): p. 335-53.
22. Garcia-Bournissen, F., A. Shrim, and G. Koren, Safety of gadolinium during pregnancy. Can Fam Physician, 2006. 52: p. 309-10.
23. Nagayama, M., et al., Fast MR imaging in obstetrics. Radiographics, 2002. 22(3): p. 563-80; discussion 580-2.
24. Leyendecker, J.R., V. Gorengaut, and J.J. Brown, MR imaging of maternal diseases of the abdomen and pelvis during pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period. Radiographics, 2004. 24(5): p. 1301-16.
25. McKenna, D.A., et al., The use of MRI to demonstrate small bowel obstruction during pregnancy. Br J Radiol, 2007. 80(949): p. e11-4.
26. Adelstein, S.J., Administered radionuclides in pregnancy. Teratology, 1999. 59(4): p. 236-9.
27. Andriulli, A., et al., Incidence Rates of Post-ERCP Complications: A Systematic Survey of Prospective Studies. Am J Gastroenterol, 2007.
28. Qureshi, W.A., et al., ASGE Guideline: Guidelines for endoscopy in pregnant and lactating women. Gastrointest Endosc, 2005. 61(3): p. 357-62.
29. Quan, W.L., C.K. Chia, and H.B. Yim, Safety of endoscopical procedures during pregnancy. Singapore Med J, 2006. 47(6): p. 525-8.
30. Reedy, M.B., B. Kallen, and T.J. Kuehl, Laparoscopy during pregnancy: a study of five fetal outcome parameters with use of the Swedish Health Registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1997. 177(3): p. 673-9.
31. Reedy, M.B., et al., Laparoscopy during pregnancy. A survey of laparoendoscopic surgeons. J Reprod Med, 1997. 42(1): p. 33-8.
32. Gurbuz, A.T. and M.E. Peetz, The acute abdomen in the pregnant patient. Is there a role for laparoscopy? Surg Endosc, 1997. 11(2): p. 98-102.
33. Buser, K.B., Laparoscopic surgery in the pregnant patient--one surgeon's experience in a small rural hospital. Jsls, 2002. 6(2): p. 121-4.
34. Lachman, E., et al., Pregnancy and laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 1999. 6(3): p. 347-51.
35. Fatum, M. and N. Rojansky, Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 2001. 56(1): p. 50-9.
36. Curet, M.J., et al., Laparoscopy during pregnancy. Arch Surg, 1996. 131(5): p. 546-50; discussion 550-1.
37. Conron, R.W., Jr., et al., Laparoscopic procedures in pregnancy. Am Surg, 1999. 65(3): p. 259-63.
38. Al-Fozan, H. and T. Tulandi, Safety and risks of laparoscopy in pregnancy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2002. 14(4): p. 375-9.
39. Amos, J.D., et al., Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Am J Surg, 1996. 171(4): p. 435-7.
40. Nezhat, F.R., et al., Laparoscopy during pregnancy: a literature review. Jsls, 1997. 1(1): p. 17-27.
41. Guidelines for laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(2): p. 189-90.
42. Rizzo, A.G., Laparoscopic surgery in pregnancy: long-term follow-up. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2003. 13(1): p. 11-5.
43. Andreoli, M., et al., Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 1999. 6(2): p. 229-33.
44. Shay, D.C., K. Bhavani-Shankar, and S. Datta, Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Anesthesiol Clin North America, 2001. 19(1): p. 57-67.
45. Oelsner, G., et al., Pregnancy outcome after laparoscopy or laparotomy in pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2003. 10(2): p. 200-4.
46. Oelsner, G., et al., Pregnancy outcome after laparoscopy or laparotomy in pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2003. 10(2): p. 200-4.
47. McKellar, D.P., et al., Cholecystectomy during pregnancy without fetal loss. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1992. 174(6): p. 465-8.
48. Glasgow, R.E., et al., Changing management of gallstone disease during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(3): p. 241-6.
49. Affleck, D.G., et al., The laparoscopic management of appendicitis and cholelithiasis during pregnancy. Am J Surg, 1999. 178(6): p. 523-9.
50. Barone, J.E., et al., Outcome study of cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Am J Surg, 1999. 177(3): p. 232-6.
51. Rollins, M.D., K.J. Chan, and R.R. Price, Laparoscopy for appendicitis and cholelithiasis during pregnancy: a new standard of care. Surg Endosc, 2003.
52. Davis, A., V.L. Katz, and R. Cox, Gallbladder disease in pregnancy. J Reprod Med, 1995. 40(11): p. 759-62.
53. Muench, J., et al., Delay in treatment of biliary disease during pregnancy increases morbidity and can be avoided with safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Surg, 2001. 67(6): p. 539-42; discussion 542-3.
54. Visser, B.C., et al., Safety and timing of nonobstetric abdominal surgery in pregnancy. Dig Surg, 2001. 18(5): p. 409-17.
55. Geisler, J.P., et al., Non-gynecologic laparoscopy in second and third trimester pregnancy: obstetric implications. Jsls, 1998. 2(3): p. 235-8.
56. Stepp, K. and T. Falcone, Laparoscopy in the second trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2004. 31(3): p. 485-96, vii.
57. Pucci, R.O. and R.W. Seed, Case report of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the third trimester of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1991. 165(2): p. 401-2.
58. Weber, A.M., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol, 1991. 78(5 Pt 2): p. 958-9.
59. Williams, J.K., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pregnancy. A case report. J Reprod Med, 1995. 40(3): p. 243-5.
60. Arvidsson, D. and E. Gerdin, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1991. 1(3): p. 193-4.
61. Costantino, G.N., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Surg, 1994. 4(2): p. 161-4.
62. Soriano, D., et al., Laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the management of adnexal masses during pregnancy. Fertil Steril, 1999. 71(5): p. 955-60.
63. Curet, M.J., Special problems in laparoscopic surgery. Previous abdominal surgery, obesity, and pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am, 2000. 80(4): p. 1093-110.
64. Elkayam U, G.N., Cardiovascular physiology of pregnancy. Cardiac Problems in Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Management of Maternal and Fetal Disease, ed. G.N. U Elkayam. 1982, New York: Alan R Liss. 5.
65. Clark, S.L., et al., Position change and central hemodynamic profile during normal third-trimester pregnancy and post partum. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1991. 164(3): p. 883-7.
66. Gordon, M.C., Maternal Physiology in Pregnancy, in Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, S.G. Gabbe, J.R. Niebyl, J.L. Simpson, Editor. 2002, Churchill Livingstone: Philadelphia. p. 63-91.
67. Friedman, J.D., et al., Pneumoamnion and pregnancy loss after second-trimester laparoscopic surgery. Obstet Gynecol, 2002. 99(3): p. 512-3.
68. Halpern, N.B., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pregnancy: a review of published experiences and clinical considerations. Semin Laparosc Surg, 1998. 5(2): p. 129-34.
69. Lemaire, B.M. and W.F. van Erp, Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1997. 11(1): p. 15-8.
70. Canis, M., et al., Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses: a gold standard? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2002. 14(4): p. 423-8.
71. Malangoni, M.A., Gastrointestinal surgery and pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2003. 32(1): p. 181-200.
72. Wang, C.J., et al., Minilaparoscopic cystectomy and appendectomy in late second trimester. Jsls, 2002. 6(4): p. 373-5.
73. Akira, S., et al., Gasless laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy during pregnancy: comparison with laparotomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1999. 180(3 Pt 1): p. 554-7.
74. Murakami, T., et al., Cul-de-sac packing with a metreurynter in gasless laparoscopic cystectomy during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2003. 10(3): p. 421-3.
75. Schmidt, T., et al., Gasless laparoscopy as an option for conservative therapy of adnexal pedical torsion with twin pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2001. 8(4): p. 621-2.
76. Romer, T., B. Bojahr, and G. Schwesinger, Treatment of a torqued hematosalpinx in the thirteenth week of pregnancy using gasless laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2002. 9(1): p. 89-92.
77. Melgrati, L., et al., Isobaric (gasless) laparoscopic myomectomy during pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2005. 12(4): p. 379-81.
78. Matsumoto, T., et al., Laparoscopic treatment of uterine prolapse during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol, 1999. 93(5 Pt 2): p. 849.
79. Oguri, H., K. Taniguchi, and T. Fukaya, Gasless laparoscopic management of ovarian cysts during pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2005. 91(3): p. 258-9.
80. Iafrati, M.D., R. Yarnell, and S.D. Schwaitzberg, Gasless laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Surg, 1995. 5(2): p. 127-30.
81. Hume, R.F., Killiam AP, Maternal Physiology, in Obstetrics and Gynecology, J.R. Scott, J. KiSaia, D.B. Hammon, Editor. 1990, JB Lippincott: Philadelphia. p. 93-100.
82. Guidelines for laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(2): p. 189-90.
83. Hunter, J.G., L. Swanstrom, and K. Thornburg, Carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum induces fetal acidosis in a pregnant ewe model. Surg Endosc, 1995. 9(3): p. 272-7; discussion 277-9.
84. Reedy, M.B., et al., Maternal and fetal effects of laparoscopic insufflation in the gravid baboon. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 1995. 2(4): p. 399-406.
85. Curet, M.J., et al., Effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum in pregnant ewes. J Surg Res, 1996. 63(1): p. 339-44.
86. Barnard, J.M., et al., Fetal response to carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum in the pregnant ewe. Obstet Gynecol, 1995. 85(5 Pt 1): p. 669-74.
87. Cruz, A.M., et al., Intraabdominal carbon dioxide insufflation in the pregnant ewe. Uterine blood flow, intraamniotic pressure, and cardiopulmonary effects. Anesthesiology, 1996. 85(6): p. 1395-402.
88. Soper, N.J., J.G. Hunter, and R.H. Petrie, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1992. 6(3): p. 115-7.
89. Comitalo, J.B. and D. Lynch, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the pregnant patient. Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1994. 4(4): p. 268-71.
90. Bhavani-Shankar, K., et al., Arterial to end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure difference during laparoscopic surgery in pregnancy. Anesthesiology, 2000. 93(2): p. 370-3.
91. Melnick, D.M., W.L. Wahl, and V.K. Dalton, Management of general surgical problems in the pregnant patient. Am J Surg, 2004. 187(2): p. 170-80.
92. Jorgensen, J.O., et al., Venous stasis during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1994. 4(2): p. 128-33.
93. Risk of and prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital patients. Thromboembolic Risk Factors (THRIFT) Consensus Group. Bmj, 1992. 305(6853): p. 567-74.
94. Casele, H.L., The use of unfractionated heparin and low molecular weight heparins in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2006. 49(4): p. 895-905.
95. Hiatt, J.R., et al., Biliary disease in pregnancy: strategy for surgical management. Am J Surg, 1986. 151(2): p. 263-5.
96. Ghumman, E., M. Barry, and P.A. Grace, Management of gallstones in pregnancy. Br J Surg, 1997. 84(12): p. 1646-50.
97. Chamogeorgakis, T., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy: three case reports. Jsls, 1999. 3(1): p. 67-9.
98. Steinbrook, R.A., D.C. Brooks, and S. Datta, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Review of anesthetic management, surgical considerations. Surg Endosc, 1996. 10(5): p. 511-5.
99. Scott, L.D., Gallstone disease and pancreatitis in pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 1992. 21(4): p. 803-15.
100. Printen, K.J. and R.A. Ott, Cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Am Surg, 1978. 44(7): p. 432-4.
101. Graham, G., L. Baxi, and T. Tharakan, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy: a case series and review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv, 1998. 53(9): p. 566-74.
102. DeVore, G.R., Acute abdominal pain in the pregnant patient due to pancreatitis, acute appendicitis, cholecystitis, or peptic ulcer disease. Clin Perinatol, 1980. 7(2): p. 349-69.
103. Borum, M.L., Hepatobiliary diseases in women. Med Clin North Am, 1998. 82(1): p. 51-75.
104. Tuech, J.J., et al., Management of choledocholithiasis during pregnancy by magnetic resonance cholangiography and laparoscopic common bile duct stone extraction. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2000. 10(5): p. 323-5.
105. Baillie, J., et al., Endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis during pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1990. 171(1): p. 1-4.
106. Sungler, P., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy and interventional endoscopy for gallstone complications during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 2000. 14(3): p. 267-71.
107. Cosenza, C.A., et al., Surgical management of biliary gallstone disease during pregnancy. Am J Surg, 1999. 178(6): p. 545-8.
108. Barthel, J.S., T. Chowdhury, and B.W. Miedema, Endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of gallstone pancreatitis during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1998. 12(5): p. 394-9.
109. Scapa, E., To do or not to do an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in acute biliary pancreatitis? Surg Laparosc Endosc, 1995. 5(6): p. 453-4.
110. Andreoli, M., et al., Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for recurrent gallstone pancreatitis during pregnancy. South Med J, 1996. 89(11): p. 1114-5.
111. Schwartzberg, B.S., J.A. Conyers, and J.A. Moore, First trimester of pregnancy laparoscopic procedures. Surg Endosc, 1997. 11(12): p. 1216-7.
112. Thomas, S.J. and P. Brisson, Laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy during pregnancy: six case reports. Jsls, 1998. 2(1): p. 41-6.
113. Barnes, S.L., et al., Laparoscopic appendectomy after 30 weeks pregnancy: report of two cases and description of technique. Am Surg, 2004. 70(8): p. 733-6.
114. de Perrot, M., et al., Laparoscopic appendectomy during pregnancy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2000. 10(6): p. 368-71.
115. Schreiber, J.H., Laparoscopic appendectomy in pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 1990. 4(2): p. 100-2.
116. Mazze, R.I. and B. Kallen, Appendectomy during pregnancy: a Swedish registry study of 778 cases. Obstet Gynecol, 1991. 77(6): p. 835-40.
117. Cunningham, F.G. and J.H. McCubbin, Appendicitis complicating pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol, 1975. 45(4): p. 415-20.
118. Andersen, B. and T.F. Nielsen, Appendicitis in pregnancy: diagnosis, management and complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 1999. 78(9): p. 758-62.
119. Horowitz, M.D., et al., Acute appendicitis during pregnancy. Diagnosis and management. Arch Surg, 1985. 120(12): p. 1362-7.
120. Mourad, J., et al., Appendicitis in pregnancy: new information that contradicts long-held clinical beliefs. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000. 182(5): p. 1027-9.
121. Mahmoodian, S., Appendicitis complicating pregnancy. South Med J, 1992. 85(1): p. 19-24.
122. Cappell, M.S. and D. Friedel, Abdominal pain during pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am, 2003. 32(1): p. 1-58.
123. Tamir, I.L., F.S. Bongard, and S.R. Klein, Acute appendicitis in the pregnant patient. Am J Surg, 1990. 160(6): p. 571-5; discussion 575-6.
124. Weingold, A.B., Appendicitis in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 1983. 26(4): p. 801-9.
125. Shalhav, A.L., et al., Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for primary hyperaldosteronism during pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2000. 10(3): p. 169-71.
126. Finkenstedt, G., et al., Pheochromocytoma and sub-clinical Cushing's syndrome during pregnancy: diagnosis, medical pre-treatment and cure by laparoscopic unilateral adrenalectomy. J Endocrinol Invest, 1999. 22(7): p. 551-7.
127. Aishima, M., et al., Retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy in a pregnant woman with Cushing's syndrome. J Urol, 2000. 164(3 Pt 1): p. 770-1.
128. Lo, C.Y., C.M. Lo, and K.Y. Lam, Cushing's syndrome secondary to adrenal adenoma during pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 2002. 16(1): p. 219-20.
129. Janetschek, G., et al., Laparoscopic surgery for pheochromocytoma: adrenalectomy, partial resection, excision of paragangliomas. J Urol, 1998. 160(2): p. 330-4.
130. Demeure, M.J., et al., Laparoscopic removal of a right adrenal pheochromocytoma in a pregnant woman. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 1998. 8(5): p. 315-9.
131. Pace, D.E., et al., Minimally invasive adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma during pregnancy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2002. 12(2): p. 122-5.
132. Gagner, M., et al., Is laparoscopic adrenalectomy indicated for pheochromocytomas? Surgery, 1996. 120(6): p. 1076-9; discussion 1079-80.
133. Wolf, A., et al., Pheochromocytoma during pregnancy: laparoscopic and conventional surgical treatment of two cases. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes, 2004. 112(2): p. 98-101.
134. Kim, P.T., et al., Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for pheochromocytoma in pregnancy. Can J Surg, 2006. 49(1): p. 62-3.
135. Griffiths, J., et al., Laparoscopic splenectomy for the treatment of refractory immune thrombocytopenia in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2005. 27(8): p. 771-4.
136. Hardwick, R.H., et al., Laparoscopic splenectomy in pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 1999. 9(5): p. 439-40.
137. Allran, C.F., Jr., C.A. Weiss, 3rd, and A.E. Park, Urgent laparoscopic splenectomy in a morbidly obese pregnant woman: case report and literature review. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2002. 12(6): p. 445-7.
138. Iwase, K., et al., Hand-assisted laparoscopic splenectomy for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura during pregnancy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2001. 11(1): p. 53-6.
139. Anglin, B.V., et al., Immune thrombocytopenic purpura during pregnancy: laparoscopic treatment. Jsls, 2001. 5(1): p. 63-7.
140. O'Connor, J.P., et al., Laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal-cell carcinoma during pregnancy. J Endourol, 2004. 18(9): p. 871-4.
141. Sainsbury, D.C., et al., Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in first-trimester pregnancy. Urology, 2004. 64(6): p. 1231 e7-8.
142. Bozzo, M., M. Buscaglia, and E. Ferrazzi, The management of persistent adnexal masses in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1997. 177(4): p. 981-2.
143. Thornton, J.G. and M. Wells, Ovarian cysts in pregnancy: does ultrasound make traditional management inappropriate? Obstet Gynecol, 1987. 69(5): p. 717-21.
144. Grimes, W.H., Jr., et al., Ovarian cyst complicating pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1954. 68(2): p. 594-605.
145. Sherard, G.B., 3rd, et al., Adnexal masses and pregnancy: a 12-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2003. 189(2): p. 358-62; discussion 362-3.
146. Hess, L.W., et al., Adnexal mass occurring with intrauterine pregnancy: report of fifty-four patients requiring laparotomy for definitive management. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1988. 158(5): p. 1029-34.
147. Schmeler, K.M., et al., Adnexal masses in pregnancy: surgery compared with observation. Obstet Gynecol, 2005. 105(5 Pt 1): p. 1098-103.
148. Zanetta, G., et al., A prospective study of the role of ultrasound in the management of adnexal masses in pregnancy. Bjog, 2003. 110(6): p. 578-83.
149. Condous, G., et al., Should we be examining the ovaries in pregnancy? Prevalence and natural history of adnexal pathology detected at first-trimester sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2004. 24(1): p. 62-6.
150. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol, 2007. 110(1): p. 201-14.
151. Nezhat, F., et al., Laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy during pregnancy. J Laparoendosc Surg, 1991. 1(3): p. 161-4.
152. Parker, W.H., et al., A multicenter study of laparoscopic management of selected cystic adnexal masses in postmenopausal women. J Am Coll Surg, 1994. 179(6): p. 733-7.
153. Tazuke, S.I., et al., Laparoscopic management of pelvic pathology during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 1997. 4(5): p. 605-8.
154. Chung, M.K. and R.P. Chung, Laparoscopic extracorporeal oophorectomy and ovarian cystectomy in second trimester pregnant obese patients. Jsls, 2001. 5(3): p. 273-7.
155. Yuen, P.M. and A.M. Chang, Laparoscopic management of adnexal mass during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 1997. 76(2): p. 173-6.
156. Loh, F.H., et al., Case report of ruptured endometriotic cyst in pregnancy treated by laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy. Singapore Med J, 1998. 39(8): p. 368-9.
157. Stepp, K.J., et al., Laparoscopy for adnexal masses in the second trimester of pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2003. 10(1): p. 55-9.
158. Neiswender, L.L. and D.B. Toub, Laparoscopic excision of pelvic masses during pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 1997. 4(2): p. 269-72.
159. Yuen, P.M., et al., Outcome in laparoscopic management of persistent adnexal mass during the second trimester of pregnancy. Surg Endosc, 2004. 18(9): p. 1354-7.
160. Parker, J., et al., Laparoscopic adnexal surgery during pregnancy: a case of heterotopic tubal pregnancy treated by laparoscopic salpingectomy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol, 1995. 35(2): p. 208-10.
161. Moore, R.D. and W.G. Smith, Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses in pregnant women. J Reprod Med, 1999. 44(2): p. 97-100.
162. Lin, Y.H., et al., Successful laparoscopic management of a huge ovarian tumor in the 27th week of pregnancy. A case report. J Reprod Med, 2003. 48(10): p. 834-6.
163. Mathevet, P., et al., Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses in pregnancy: a case series. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2003. 108(2): p. 217-22.
164. Struyk, A.P. and P.E. Treffers, Ovarian tumors in pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 1984. 63(5): p. 421-4.
165. Nichols, D.H. and P.J. Julian, Torsion of the adnexa. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 1985. 28(2): p. 375-80.
166. Mage, G., et al., Laparoscopic management of adnexal torsion. A review of 35 cases. J Reprod Med, 1989. 34(8): p. 520-4.
167. Garzarelli, S. and N. Mazzuca, One laparoscopic puncture for treatment of ovarian cysts with adnexal torsion in early pregnancy. A report of two cases. J Reprod Med, 1994. 39(12): p. 985-6.
168. Morice, P., et al., Laparoscopy for adnexal torsion in pregnant women. J Reprod Med, 1997. 42(7): p. 435-9.
169. Abu-Musa, A., et al., Laparoscopic unwinding and cystectomy of twisted dermoid cyst during second trimester of pregnancy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc, 2001. 8(3): p. 456-60.
170. Bassil, S., U. Steinhart, and J. Donnez, Successful laparoscopic management of adnexal torsion during week 25 of a twin pregnancy. Hum Reprod, 1999. 14(3): p. 855-7.
171. Argenta, P.A., et al., Torsion of the uterine adnexa. Pathologic correlations and current management trends. J Reprod Med, 2000. 45(10): p. 831-6.
172. Tarraza, H.M. and R.D. Moore, Gynecologic causes of the acute abdomen and the acute abdomen in pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am, 1997. 77(6): p. 1371-94.
173. Oelsner, G., et al., Long-term follow-up of the twisted ischemic adnexa managed by detorsion. Fertil Steril, 1993. 60(6): p. 976-9.
174. Sharp, H.T., The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 2002. 45(2): p. 405-13.
175. Katz, V.L. and R.M. Farmer, Controversies in tocolytic therapy. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 1999. 42(4): p. 802-19.
176. Berkman, N.D., et al., Tocolytic treatment for the management of preterm labor: a review of the evidence. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2003. 188(6): p. 1648-59.
177. Tan, T.C., et al., Tocolytic treatment for the management of preterm labour: a systematic review. Singapore Med J, 2006. 47(5): p. 361-6.
178. Romero, R., et al., An oxytocin receptor antagonist (atosiban) in the treatment of preterm labor: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with tocolytic rescue. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000. 182(5): p. 1173-83.

APPENDIX A: Levels of Evidence

Level 1	Evidence from properly conducted randomized, controlled trials
Level II	Evidence from controlled trials without randomization Or Cohort or case-control studies Or Multiple time series, dramatic uncontrolled experiments
Level III	Descriptive case series, opinions of expert panels

APPENDIX B: Scale for Evidence Grading

Grade A	High-level (level I or II), well-performed studies with uniform interpretation and conclusions by the expert panel
Grade B	High-level, well-performed studies with varying interpretation and conclusions by the expert panel
Grade C	Lower level evidence (level II or less) with inconsistent findings and/or varying interpretations or conclusions by the expert panel

This statement was reviewed and approved by the Board of Governors of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), September 2007. It was revised by the SAGES Guidelines Committee.

Requests for reprints should be sent to:

Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons
11300 W. Olympic Blvd.
Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: 310-437-0544, ext 102
Fax: 310-437-0585
E-mail: SAGESweb@sages.org

This is a revision of SAGES Publication #0023, originally printed 10/2000.

 

 

Return To Previous Page