Clinical PaperComparing laparoscopic versus open Ladd's procedure in pediatric patients

Background/purposeThe objective of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open Ladd's procedure on 30-day postoperative outcomes.MethodsAll elective Ladd's procedures performed on patients with intestinal malrotation in the 2013-2014 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric were identified. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to account for baseline differences between groups, and generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to compare 30-day outcomes between open versus laparoscopic groups.ResultsFifty-eight (18.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic Ladd's while 253 (81.4%) underwent an open technique. After propensity score matching, 53 laparoscopic cases (38.1%) and 86 open cases (61.9%) were identified and compared for outcomes. Total length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group compared to the open group (6 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative length of stay was shorter for the laparoscopic group as well (5 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications occurred in 5 laparoscopic cases (9.4%) and in 18 open cases (20.9%), but did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.08). One laparoscopic patient (1.9%) and 8 open patients (9.3%) required hospitalization beyond 30 days, but this also did not meet significance (p = 0.08).ConclusionsIn a matched analysis, laparoscopic Ladd's led to shorter hospital stays than open Ladd's in the initial 30-day postoperative period. Short-term benefits of laparoscopic Ladd's lend support for using additional resources to perform multi-institutional studies to compare differences in long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open Ladd's.Type of studyTherapeuticLevel of evidenceIII