We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review
Laparoscopic versus open pyloromyotomy in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Pediatric Surgery International 2017 March
PURPOSE: To determine whether open or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy is superior for the treatment of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in infants.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for articles comparing laparoscopic and open procedures. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and described other results narratively.
RESULTS: Our meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in our primary outcome of major complications [risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.08, P = 0.35, I 2 = 55%], or in our secondary outcomes of all perioperative complications (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04, P = 0.74, I 2 = 0%), operative time [mean difference (MD) 0.68, 95% CI -3.60 to 4.79, P = 0.76, I 2 = 86%], and length of stay (MD -2.60, 95% CI -6.05 to 0.86, P = 0.14, I 2 = 0%). Laparoscopy was associated with a shorter time to full feeds (standardized mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06, P = 0.009, I 2 = 8%) and a slightly higher rate of inadequate pyloromyotomy (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.08, P = 0.03, I 2 = 0%). Results from one randomized controlled trial indicate a better cosmetic outcome after laparoscopy compared to open procedure.
CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence to support a recommendation of one procedure over the other; therefore, the choice of laparoscopic or open procedure should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for articles comparing laparoscopic and open procedures. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and described other results narratively.
RESULTS: Our meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in our primary outcome of major complications [risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.08, P = 0.35, I 2 = 55%], or in our secondary outcomes of all perioperative complications (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04, P = 0.74, I 2 = 0%), operative time [mean difference (MD) 0.68, 95% CI -3.60 to 4.79, P = 0.76, I 2 = 86%], and length of stay (MD -2.60, 95% CI -6.05 to 0.86, P = 0.14, I 2 = 0%). Laparoscopy was associated with a shorter time to full feeds (standardized mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06, P = 0.009, I 2 = 8%) and a slightly higher rate of inadequate pyloromyotomy (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.08, P = 0.03, I 2 = 0%). Results from one randomized controlled trial indicate a better cosmetic outcome after laparoscopy compared to open procedure.
CONCLUSION: There is no strong evidence to support a recommendation of one procedure over the other; therefore, the choice of laparoscopic or open procedure should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app