ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
The Safety and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Congenital Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis in Infants.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pyloromyotomy for Infantile Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis: Insights from an Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pediatric reports · 2025Review
- Nationwide trends of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy in patients with infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in Germany: A slow path forward.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Transumbilical single-site two incision laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for pediatric hypertrophic pyloric stenosis.BMC surgery · 2022Article
- The Safety and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy Using 3-mm Electrocautery Hook versus Open Surgery for Treatment of Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis in Infants.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A novel two-port single-site laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for infantile hypertrophic pyloric stenosis.Journal of minimal access surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for infants with congenital hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS The clinical data of 233 infants with congenital hypertrophic pyloric stenosis who were treated at our hospital from January 2013 to January 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups: the laparoscopic group (group A, n=126) and the conventional operation group (group B, n=107). RESULTS Laparoscopic surgery was successfully performed in all patients in the laparoscopic group, and none of the surgeries were converted to open surgery. Compared with traditional surgery, laparoscopic surgery has obvious advantages in operation time (29.8±12.9 minutes versus 37.2±17.5 minutes, P=0.012), postoperative feeding time (10.3±2.2 hours versus 15.2±4.1 hours, P=0.035), postoperative hospitalization time (2.8±0.7 days versus 3.5±1.9 days, P=0.013), incision length (0.9±0.2 cm versus 3.3±0.8 cm, P=0.002) and poor wound healing (0 versus 6, P=0.007). No complications, such as bleeding, gastric perforation, duodenal injury, abdominal infection or recurrent vomiting, were observed in the 2 groups. The growth and development (weight and height) of the infants in both groups were normal. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy has the same safety and effectiveness as the traditional operation and has the advantages of less trauma, faster recovery and cosmetically pleasing incisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.