Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 14, 2025

Author Spotlight: Cutting-Edge Robotic Heller Myotomy Protocol for Treatment of Achalasia
Published on: February 16, 2024
Open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for pyloric stenosis
Ralph F Staerkle1, Fabian Lunger2,3, Lukas Fink4
1Visceral Surgery, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, Luzern, Switzerland.
Insights
Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) may slightly increase mucosal perforation risk for infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS) compared to open pyloromyotomy (OP). Evidence on other outcomes like incomplete procedures and infections remains uncertain due to very low certainty.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Surgery
- Gastrointestinal Surgery
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS) affects infants under one year old.
- Treatment options include laparoscopic (LP) and open (OP) longitudinal myotomy.
- LP has become increasingly common worldwide since its introduction in 1990.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy versus open pyloromyotomy for IHPS.
- To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on surgical outcomes.
Main Methods:
- Comprehensive literature search of RCTs and quasi-randomized trials comparing LP and OP for IHPS, conducted up to February 2021.
- Inclusion criteria focused on trials comparing LP with OP for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis.
- Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers; GRADE methodology was used to assess evidence certainty.
Main Results:
- Seven RCTs involving 720 participants were included.
- Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) showed a potential small increase in mucosal perforation risk compared to open pyloromyotomy (OP) (low-certainty evidence).
- Evidence regarding incomplete pyloromyotomy, wound infections, incisional hernia, hospital stay, time to feeds, and operating time was very uncertain due to low-certainty evidence and imprecision.
Conclusions:
- Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) may slightly increase the risk of mucosal perforation in IHPS patients compared to open pyloromyotomy (OP).
- The risk of incomplete pyloromyotomy may be higher with LP, but the evidence is imprecise.
- Insufficient evidence exists to definitively conclude on the comparative effects of LP versus OP for other critical outcomes, necessitating further high-quality research.
Background:
Infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (IHPS) is a disorder of young children (aged one year or less) and can be treated by laparoscopic (LP) or open (OP) longitudinal myotomy of the pylorus. Since the first description in 1990, LP is being performed more often worldwide.
Objectives:
To compare the efficacy and safety of open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for IHPS.
Search Methods:
We conducted a literature search on 04 February 2021 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without any language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (1990 to February 2021), Embase (1990 to February 2021), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We also searched the Internet using the Google Search engine (www.google.com) and Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) to identify grey literature not indexed in databases.
Selection Criteria:
We included RCTs and quasi-randomised trials comparing LP with OP for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis.
Data Collection And Analysis:
Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. Where outcomes or study details were not reported, we requested missing data from the corresponding authors of the primary RCTs. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.
Main Results:
The electronic database search resulted in a total of 434 records. After de-duplication, we screened 410 independent publications, and ultimately included seven RCTs (reported in 8 reports) in quantitative analysis. The seven included RCTs enrolled 720 participants (357 with open pyloromyotomy and 363 with laparoscopic pyloromyotomy). One study was a multi-country trial, three were carried out in the USA, and one study each was carried out in France, Japan, and Bangladesh. The evidence suggests that LP may result in a small increase in mucosal perforation compared with OP (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.26; 7 studies, 720 participants; low-certainty evidence). LP may result in up to 5 extra instances of mucosal perforation per 1,000 participants; however, the confidence interval ranges from 4 fewer to 44 more per 1,000 participants. Four RCTs with 502 participants reported on incomplete pyloromyotomy. They indicate that LP may increase the risk of incomplete pyloromyotomy compared with OP, but the confidence interval crosses the line of no effect (RR 7.37, 95% CI 0.92 to 59.11; 4 studies, 502 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the LP groups, 6 cases of incomplete pyloromyotomy were reported in 247 participants while no cases of incomplete pyloromyotomy were reported in the OP groups (from 255 participants). All included studies (720 participants) reported on postoperative wound infections or abscess formations. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of LP on postoperative wound infection or abscess formation compared with OP (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.45; 7 studies, 720 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of LP on postoperative incisional hernia compared with OP (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.53; 4 studies, 382 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Length of hospital stay was assessed by five RCTs, including 562 participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of LP compared to OP (mean difference -3.01 hours, 95% CI -8.39 to 2.37 hours; very low-certainty evidence). Time to full feeds was assessed by six studies, including 622 participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of LP on time to full feeds compared with OP (mean difference -5.86 hours, 95% CI -15.95 to 4.24 hours; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of LP on operating time compared with OP (mean difference 0.53 minutes, 95% CI -3.53 to 4.59 minutes; 6 studies, 622 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
Authors' Conclusions:
Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy may result in a small increase in mucosal perforation when compared with open pyloromyotomy for IHPS. There may be an increased risk of incomplete pyloromyotomy following LP compared with OP, but the effect estimate is imprecise and includes the possibility of no difference. We do not know about the effect of LP compared with OP on the need for re-operation, postoperative wound infections or abscess formation, postoperative haematoma or seroma formation, incisional hernia occurrence, length of postoperative stay, time to full feeds, or operating time because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for most outcomes due to limitations in the study design (most outcomes were susceptible to detection bias) and imprecision. There is limited evidence available comparing LP with OP for IHPS. The included studies did not provide sufficient information to determine the effect of training, experience, or surgeon preferences on the outcomes assessed.

