SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Open versus laparoscopic reduction in the treatment of pediatric intussusception: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic reduction (LR) versus open reduction (OR) in the management of intussusception in infants and children.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted to identify studies comparing LR and OR for intussusception treatment in infants and children. A total of 15 studies with 1403 patients (595 in the LR group and 808 in the OR group) were included. Primary outcomes, including surgical time, time to oral feeding, hospital stay, bowel resection rates, recurrence rates, and overall complications, were analyzed using meta-analysis techniques.
resultsThe analysis found no significant difference in surgical time between LR and OR (WMD = 1.19, 95% CI −15.79 to 18.17, P = 0.89), but LR was associated with significantly reduced time to oral feeding (WMD = −1.94, 95% CI −3.22 to −0.66, P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stays (WMD = −1.5, 95% CI −2.33 to −0.67, P = 0.0004). The rates of bowel resection and recurrence were similar between the two groups. LR was also associated with a lower overall rate of postoperative complications, though the difference did not reach statistical significance.
conclusionsLaparoscopic reduction appears to be at least non-inferior to open surgery, with potential benefits such as earlier oral feeding and shorter hospital stay. However, given the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further high-quality randomized trials are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41838167What 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.