SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Tapering enteroplasty versus primary anastomosis without tapering in neonatal small bowel atresia: a 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
purposeSmall bowel atresia (SBA) affects approximately 1 in 1,500-4,500 neonates and represents one of the most common congenital causes of intestinal obstruction. Management of the characteristically dilated proximal bowel segment, whether by tapering enteroplasty (TAP) or primary anastomosis without caliber reduction (non-TAP), has remained controversial for five decades in the absence of randomized evidence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically synthesize comparative evidence on postoperative outcomes following TAP versus non-TAP in neonatal SBA.
methodsA PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420261329962) searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane from inception through April 2026. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were computed using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were performed for all outcomes.
resultsSix retrospective cohort studies (n = 278 neonates; TAP: 72, non-TAP: 206) were included. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated for postoperative complications (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.67-1.23; I²=0%), reoperation (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.38-2.15; I²=0%), mortality (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.20-2.39; I²=0%), length of hospital stay (MD 0.25 days; 95% CI - 17.20 to 17.70; I²=94%), time to full enteral feeding (MD 0.21 days; 95% CI - 5.01 to 5.43; I²=62%), or time to first enteral feeding (MD - 4.79 days; 95% CI - 11.50 to 1.92; I²=93%). Confidence intervals were wide for all outcomes. TAP was performed in only 21-33% of patients across all cohorts, a pattern consistent with selective reservation for anatomically complex cases.
conclusionNo statistically significant postoperative advantage was identified for routine TAP over primary anastomosis. However, equivalence cannot be concluded given wide confidence intervals and substantial heterogeneity. Critically, the consistent minority utilization of TAP across centers, combined with directionally opposing individual-study findings, points to patient selection rather than operative technique as a likely dominant outcome driver. We propose, as a hypothesis for prospective evaluation rather than an evidence-based recommendation, that any benefit of tapering is most likely to be realized in anatomically complex cases with severe proximal dilation and marked caliber mismatch, rather than through universal application. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized atresia phenotyping and objective TAP-selection criteria are required. PROSPERO
trial registrationCRD420261329962.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635794What 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.