Advertisement

Open to laparoscopic conversion in hemoperitoneum of unknown origin

  • S. PaunEmail author
  • I. Negoi
  • R. Ganescu
  • M. Beuran
Tips&Tricks
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Demonstrating the potential, in spite of the current trend, of closing an open emergency surgical procedure and to convert it to a minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Case report of an open converted to a laparoscopic approach in an emergency setting for hemoperitoneum of unknown origin.

Results

A 28-year-old-female patient was transported to the operating room for suspected acute appendicitis. Through McBurney’s incision, hemoperitoneum was found. She was hemodynamically stable. The open incision was closed and a laparoscopic approach established. The diagnosis was a ruptured right ectopic pregnancy with mild hemoperitoneum. After a laparoscopic salpingectomy, her recovery was uneventful.

Conclusions

For selected cases, the conversion of an open procedure to a laparoscopic approach offers a real benefit for the patient, avoiding a large laparotomy and its associated morbidity.

Keywords

Ectopic pregnancy Conversion Laparoscopy Hemoperitoneum 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPG 97939 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bouyer J. Epidemiology of ectopic pregnancy: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003;32:S8–17.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouyer J, Coste J, Fernandez H, Pouly JL, Job-Spira N. Sites of ectopic pregnancy: a 10 year population-based study of 1800 cases. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3224–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garbin O. Laparoscopic surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy. Epublication: WeBSurg.com, Nov 2001;1(11). http://www.websurg.com/ref/doi-ot02en154.htm.
  4. 4.
    Varma R, Gupta J. Tubal ectopic pregnancy. Clin Evid (Online). 2009;pii:1406.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clausen I. Conservative versus radical surgery for tubal pregnancy. A review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996;75:8–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hajenius PJ, Mol F, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD000324.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hajenius PJ, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Ankum WM, van der Veen F. Interventions for tubal ectopic pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(1):CD000324.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guidelines for Laparoscopic Appendectomy. Practice/Clinical Guidelines published on: 04/2009 by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). http://www.sages.org/publication/id/05/.
  9. 9.
    Neugebauer EAM, Sauerland S, Fingerhut A, Millat B, Buess G. European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES): guidelines for endoscopic surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg. 2005;242:439–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Pritts TA, Ko CY, Esposito TJ. Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals. Surgery. 2010;148:625–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD001546.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cariati A, Masini R. Hospital bill in open and laparoscopic appendectomy. Ann Surg. 2004;240:562–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Surgery DepartmentCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Emergency Hospital of BucharestBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations