Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

An Audit of the Gynecological Emergencies requiring Emergency Laparotomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital: Timeline of Events from Arrival to Emergency to Arrival to Operation Theater

Anuradha Gadamsetty, Sikha Thomas

Keywords : Gynecological emergency, Gynecological potentially life-threatening emergencies, Ruptured ectopic pregnancy, Timeline of events

Citation Information : Gadamsetty A, Thomas S. An Audit of the Gynecological Emergencies requiring Emergency Laparotomy in a Tertiary Care Hospital: Timeline of Events from Arrival to Emergency to Arrival to Operation Theater. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2022; 14 (6):658-662.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2143

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Introduction: Gynecological emergencies can threaten the life of the female and cause loss of fertility and organ. Ruptured ectopic pregnancy is the most prevalent of the gynecological potentially life-threatening emergencies (G-PLEs). Diagnostic tools are medical history, clinical examination, imaging, and lab investigations, mainly human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) and hemoglobin. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment and the approach can be laparotomy and laparoscopy. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the time taken from arrival in the emergency department (ED) to arrival to diagnosis and to assess the time taken from arrival to ED to arrival to operation theater (OT) and correlate the time taken with patient morbidity. Methods: The study was done between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021. All patients with suspected gynecological emergencies requiring emergency laparotomy/laparoscopy arriving at the ED were included in the study. Data collection was from medical records – six time intervals were collected. Results: There were 16 ruptured ectopic pregnancies during the study period. ED to OB consultation was in <60 min in 12 (75%) cases. ED to ultrasound (USG) and diagnosis were in <60 min in 11 (73%) cases. Diagnosis to OT was in <60 min in only 8 (50%) cases. Delay after diagnosis was due to delay in admission in four (delay in the decision by attendees mostly due to financial constraints), delay in the decision for surgical intervention in three, and nonavailability of blood in one patient. All 5 (100%) patients with grades III and IV of shock had hemoperitoneum >1.5 L and 3 (60%) required postoperative intensive care unit (ICU). Conclusion: Higher morbidity was seen in a higher grade of shock. It is essential to recognize the degree of physiological deterioration with the help of an early warning scoring system. Timely surgical intervention with simultaneous efforts for resuscitation reduces morbidity and mortality.

PDF Share
  1. Abam DS. Overview of gynaecological emergencies. Contemporary Gynecologic Practice. 2015; Feb 4.
  2. Polena V, Huchon C, Varas Ramos C, et al. Non-invasive tools for the diagnosis of potentially life-threatening gynaecological emergencies: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 2015;10(2):e0114189. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114189.
  3. McWilliams GD, Hill MJ, Dietrich III, CS. Gynecologic emergencies. Surg Clin North Am 2008;88(2):265–283, vi. DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2007.12.007.
  4. Fauconnier A, Provot J, Le Creff I, et al. A framework proposal for quality and safety measurement in gynecologic emergency care. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136(5):912. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.00000000000 04132
  5. National confidential enquiry into patient outcome – HQIP. https://www>uploads>2018/to >R. The NCE POD classification of intervention – yumper>document> view>the ncep. Accessed date: March 2022.
  6. National Emergency Laparotomy Audit, Accessed date: March 2022.
  7. Fawole AO, Awonuga DO. Gynaecological emergencies in the tropics: Recent advances in management. Ann Ib Postgrad Med 2007;5(1):12–20. DOI: 10.4314/aipm.v5i1.63539.
  8. Hammond R. Gynaecological causes of abdominal pain. Surgery (Oxford) 2005;23(6):228–231. 228.6655.
  9. Urquhart S, Barnes M, Flannigan M. Comparing time to diagnosis and treatment of patients with ruptured ectopic pregnancy based on type of ultrasound performed: A retrospective inquiry. J Emerg Med 2022;62(2):200–206. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2021.07.064.
  10. Ghandehari H, Kahn D, Glanc P. Ovarian torsion: time limiting factors for ovarian salvage. Emerg Med (Los Angel). 2015;5:5. DOI: 10.4172/2165-7548.1000273.
  11. Adamu A, Maigatari M, Lawal K, et al. Waiting time for emergency abdominal surgery in Zaria, Nigeria. Afr Health Sci 2010;10(1):46. PMID: 20811524.
  12. Van Mello NM, Zietse CS, Mol F, et al. Severe maternal morbidity in ectopic pregnancy is not associated with maternal factors but may be associated with quality of care. Fertil Steril 2012;97(3):623–639. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.021.
  13. McGurk L, Oliver R, Odejinmi F. Severe morbidity with ectopic pregnancy is associated with late presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol 2019;39(5):670–674. DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1557610.
  14. Jones M. NEWSDIG: The national early warning score development and implementation group. Clin Med 2012;12(6):501–503. DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-6-501.
  15. Pronovost PJ, Nolan T, Zeger S, et al. How can clinicians measure safety and quality in acute care? Lancet 2004;363(9414):1061–1067. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15843-1.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.