SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Laparoscopic repair of duodenal atresia: systematic review and meta-analysis after consistent implementation of the technique in the past decade.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of congenital duodenal obstruction in neonates: a 10-year retrospective cohort study from a National Children's Hospital.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Repair of Duodenal Atresia with Concurrent Situs Anomaly: A Case Series and Technical Considerations.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic repair of duodenal atresia (LRDA) remains a technically challenging procedure and its benefits ambiguous. To assess the safety and efficacy of LRDA, we performed a systematic review of techniques and material for LRDA and a meta-analysis comparing outcomes with open repair (OR).
methodsComprehensive search of EMBASSE, PubMed and Cochrane was performed from 2000 to 2023. Studies comparing LRDA with OR were identified and outcomes extracted included operative time, time to enteral feeds, length of hospitalisation, anastomotic leaks and stricture and total complications. χ
resultsTwelve studies were identified and 1731 patients were enrolled in the study (398 [LRDA] and 1325 [OR]). Total rate of complications and conversion for LRDA was 15.58% and 18.84%, respectively. Complication rates were not significantly affected by operative technique and suturing technique. Conversion rates were not significantly affected operative technique; using a combination of interrupted and running suturing was significantly higher than using running or interrupted (χ
conclusionsLRDA showed equivalent complication rates compared to OR with an additional benefit of quicker establishment of feeds. There was no significant difference in complication and conversion rates between laparoscopic techniques. Despite a longer operative time, LRDA provides a safe minimal access approach for neonates after this consistent implementation of the technique in the past decade.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38658389What 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.