ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Management of congenital duodenal obstruction in neonates: a 10-year retrospective cohort study from a National Children's Hospital.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOperative management is the definitive treatment for congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO). Currently, there is a paucity of large-scale comparative studies on laparoscopic procedure (LP) versus open procedure (OP). This study aims to present a 10-year, single-center experience in the management of CDO in neonates from a National Children's Hospital in China.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort study with a comparative design was conducted. Neonates who underwent surgical intervention for CDO between January 2016 and July 2025 were included. To adequately adjust for baseline imbalances in gestational age and birth weight, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was utilized. Differences between LP and OP in operative time, postoperative recovery, nutritional management, complication rates, and total costs were primarily compared.
resultsA total of 152 patients were enrolled and stratified into LP (n = 73) and OP (n = 79) groups. Baseline characteristics were similar except for significantly lower birth and admission weights in the OP group. After 1:1 PSM (yielding 60 pairs), operative time remained significantly longer in the LP group (median 110 min, 95% CI 105-120 vs. 75 min, 95% CI 69-80; P < 0.001). Crucially, the matched LP cohort maintained significant advantages in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery and shortening postoperative parenteral nutrition (PN) duration. However, the difference in postoperative length of stay (LOS) was no longer statistically significant. Total costs showed no significant difference between the matched groups (median 25,121 RMB, 95% CI 23647-29,577 vs. 24,178 RMB, 95% CI 22385-26,268; P = 0.071). The overall postoperative complication rate was 5.92% with no significant intergroup difference.
conclusionsThis large-scale cohort study demonstrates that LP yields comparable overall outcomes to OP, with distinct early recovery benefits characterized by accelerated gastrointestinal recovery and a shorter PN duration. These results were achieved alongside a comparable postoperative LOS, without significantly increasing total costs or postoperative complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42301462What 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.