Laparoscopic versus open reduction of intussusception in children: a retrospective review and meta-analysis

Cindy M Sklar1, Emily Chan, Ahmed Nasr

  • 1Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa , Ottawa, Ontario, Canada .

Insights

Laparoscopic (LAP) reduction is a safe alternative for pediatric intussusception when pneumatic reduction fails. This approach may offer a shorter hospital stay compared to open surgery.

Area of Science:

  • Pediatric Surgery
  • Gastrointestinal Surgery
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background:

  • Intestinal intussusception is a common cause of bowel obstruction in children.
  • Pneumatic reduction is the initial treatment, with operative reduction indicated if it fails.
  • There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgical approaches for intussusception reduction.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LAP) versus open operative reduction for pediatric intussusception.
  • To evaluate operative time, complication rates, and length of hospital stay.
  • To combine institutional data with published literature through meta-analysis.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective review of 28 children undergoing operative reduction for intussusception (2000-2012).
  • Comparison of 5 patients who underwent LAP reduction with 23 patients who underwent open reduction.
  • Meta-analysis of 5 additional retrospective studies comparing LAP and open techniques.

Main Results:

  • No significant differences in operative times or overall complication rates between LAP and open groups.
  • Mean length of hospital stay was similar in the initial patient cohort.
  • Meta-analysis indicated a significantly shorter length of hospital stay in the LAP group compared to the open group.

Conclusions:

  • Laparoscopic reduction is a safe and feasible alternative for pediatric intussusception requiring surgery.
  • The laparoscopic approach may be associated with a reduced length of hospital stay.
Abstract