Emergency surgical pathology in pregnant women and women in labor: analysis of the structure of morbidity and routing paths in St. Petersburg

Relevance. Today, despite the development of medical technologies and the improvement of the logistical aspects of healthcare, the problem of unified treatment, diagnostic and routing algorithms for pregnant women and women in labor with urgent surgical pathology remains unresolved. The first step towards its solution is a detailed analysis of the current structure of incidence and routing paths.

The objective was to analyze the incidence of urgent extragenital surgical pathology and routing paths in pregnant women and women in labor in St. Petersburg.

Methods and materials. Based on the database of invoices issued by insurance organizations in St. Petersburg for completed cases of treatment, we performed a retrospective analysis of the data of pregnant patients with extragenital surgical pathology, hospitalized on an emergency basis in the period from 2019 to 2021. We assessed the structure of morbidity, terms of delivery to the hospital, indications and range of surgical interventions, treatment outcomes.

Conclusions. In the structure of urgent and emergency hospitalizations in pregnant women, extragenital surgical pathology is 1 %. The total proportion of surgical interventions in patients with extragenital pathology is 35.1 %. Routing of a pregnant woman with suspected surgical pathology through the primary visit to the maternity hospital significantly increases (p<0.05) the average time to admission to the surgical hospital. > <0.05 ) the average time to admission to the surgical hospital.

1. Bezhenar V. F, Adamyan L. V., Filippov O. S. et al. Maternal mortality in the Northwestern Federal Region of the Russian Federation: a comparative analysis 2018— 2019, conceptual approaches to reduction // Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2020;26(6–2):33–41. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/repro20202606233.

2. McGory M. L., Zingmond D. S., Tillou A. et al. Negative appendectomy in pregnant women is associated with a substantial risk of fetal loss // J Am Coll Surg. – 2007; 205(4): 534–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.05.025.

3. Murasnko M. A., Sukhikh G. T., Pugachev P. S. et al. International and Russian experience in monitoring maternal near-miss cases // Obstetrics and gynecology. 2021;3:5–11. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/aig.2021.3.5-11.

4. Juhasz-Böss I., Laschke M. W., Müller F. et al. Endometriosis: Survey of Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options and Latest Research Work // Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014;74(8):733–742. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382884. PMID: 25221341; PMCID: PMC4153819.

5. SHen’ N. P., SHvechkova M. V., Kukarskaya I. I. Surgery in pregnancy: the view from anesthesiology and intensive care point // Difficult patient. 2013;(2–3):4–11. (In Russ.).

6. Diegelmann L. Nonobstetric abdominal pain and surgical emergencies in pregnancy // Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2012;30(4):885–901. DOI: 10.1016/j.emc.2012.08.012.

7. Bezhenar V. F., Dobrovolskaya I. A., Levina Т. А. Investigation of severe maternal outcomes based on forensic medical examination // Russian journal of Woman and Child Health. 2018;1(1):18–25. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2618-8430-2018-1-1-18-25.

8. Ministerstvo zdravoohraneniya Rossijskoj Federacii. Audit kriticheskih akusherskih sostoyanij v Rossijskoj Federacii v 2016 g. (metodicheskoe pis’mo Minzdrava RF ot 23.10.2017. № 15-4/10/2-7340. URL: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/556168785 (accessed: 10.01.24) (In Russ.).

9. Sachs A., Guglielminotti J., Miller R. Risk factors and risk stratification for adverse obstetrical outcomes after appendectomy or cholecystectomy during pregnancy // JAMA Surgery. 2017;152(5):436–441. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5045.

10. Bashmakova N. V., Davydenko N. B., Malgina G. B. Maternal near-miss monitoring as part of a strategy for the improvement of obstetric care // Russian Bulletin of obstetrician-gynecologist. 2019;19(3):5–10. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17116/rosakush2019190315.

11. Letter of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation № 15-4/383 from 11.03.2021 “On methodological approaches to the assessment and analysis of critical conditions (near miss) based on WHO criteria”. URL: https://www.arfpoint.ru/docs/o-metodicheskih-podhodah-k-ocenke-i-analizu-kriticheskih-sostojanij-near-miss-na-osnovanii-kriteriev-voz/ (accessed: 10.01.24).

12. Evaluating the quality of care for severe pregnancy complications. The WHO near-miss approach for maternal health. 2011. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44692 (accessed: 10.01.24).

13. Minkoff H. Maternal mortality in America: lessons from the developing world // J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972). 2002;57(3):171–2. PMID: 12146611.

14. Kukarskaya I. I. Prevention and reserves of reduction of maternal mortality in the Tyumen region: autoref. dis. ... Dr. of medical sciences: 14.01.01. M., People’s Friendship, University of Russia 2012:41.

15. Munnur U., Karnad D., Guntupalli K. K. Critically ill obstetric patients in an American and an Indian public hospital: Comparison of case-mix, organ dysfunction, intensive care requirements, and outcomes: Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:1087–1094. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-005-2710-5.

16. Procedure for the provision of medical care in the profile “obstetrics and gynecology” (Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of 20.10.20, No. 1130n). URL: http://sudact.ru/law/prikaz-minzdrava-rossii-ot-20102020-n-1130n/prilozhenie-n-1 (accessed: 10.01.24).

17. Order of the Committee on Health of 03.12.2019 № 644-r “On the organization of medical care in St. Petersburg in the profile of Obstetrics and Gynecology”. URL: http:// zdrav.spb.ru/ru/for-people/marshrut/ (accessed: 10.01.24).