Is less more? Laparoscopic versus open Ladd's procedure in children with malrotation

With the advent of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic Ladd's procedure is increasingly used to treat children with malrotation, yet evidence regarding its safety and efficacy is lacking. We hypothesize that operative and postoperative outcomes with the open technique are superior to the laparoscopic Ladd's procedure.

We conducted a 5-y retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent Ladd's procedure at our institution from 2010-2015. Exclusion of patients included those with concomitant conditions, such as poor gut perfusion, significant reflux, tracheoesophageal fistula, failure to thrive requiring concomitant gastrostomy, and biliary atresia. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used where appropriate.

Between 2010 and 2015, of 130 patients who underwent Ladd's procedure, 77 met inclusion criteria. Sixty-two patients underwent initial open surgery, 15 patients underwent laparoscopy, seven of which were converted to open. Patients undergoing open surgery were younger compared to the laparoscopic groups. Thirty-three of the 77 malrotation patients (43%) presented with volvulus, 27 underwent open surgery, four had laparoscopic converted to open procedures, and two patients underwent laparoscopic Ladd's without incident. Laparoscopy resulted in increased operative time and clinic visits. Patients undergoing laparoscopic to open surgery had longer operative times, time to resume diet, and length of hospital stay. No difference was noted in complications among the groups.

Although minimally invasive approaches are becoming increasingly used, no evidence supports laparoscopic superiority over open Ladd's procedure. We found that open surgery was associated with shorter operating times and fewer clinic visits. Furthermore, laparotomy remains the favored procedure for patients presenting with volvulus.