Systematic Review of Level 1 Evidence for Laparoscopic Pediatric Surgery: Do Our Procedures Comply with the Requirements of Evidence-Based Medicine?

Abstract

Introduction Laparoscopic techniques have evolved quickly in recent years and are regarded as standard procedures in pediatric surgery today. However, most studies comparing laparoscopic operations with the corresponding open procedure do not reach a high level of evidence according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For evidence Level 1a, a meta-analysis (MA) of different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is required. For evidence Level 1b, at least one RCT is required. The aim of our study was to evaluate the availability of Level 1 studies comparing laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation in pediatric surgery.

Materials and Methods Systematic review of clinical Level 1 studies using PubMed. All MA and RCT were identified and individually reviewed. Only studies comparing pediatric laparoscopic procedures with the corresponding open operation were included. RCTs included in MA were only individually analyzed if they focused on additional endpoints. Endpoints of the study were advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopy compared with the open operation.

Results A total of 20 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria (9 MA and 11 RCT). Studies providing evidence Level 1a were identified for five types of laparoscopic procedures (laparoscopic appendectomy, inguinal hernia repair, orchidopexy, pyloromyotomy, and varicocelectomy). Studies providing evidence Level 1b were identified for two types of laparoscopic procedures (fundoplication and pyeloplasty). The advantages of laparoscopy were less wound infections, ileus and postoperative pain (appendectomy), less retching (fundoplication), lower incidence of metachronous inguinal hernia, shorter hospital stay (appendectomy, orchiopexy, and pyeloplasty), and shorter time to full feeds (pyloromyotomy).

Conclusion Studies providing evidence Level 1 are only available for seven laparoscopic procedures in pediatric surgery. Effort has to be made to extend the existing Level 1 evidence and to gain high level evidence for further laparoscopic procedures.

Keywords

laparoscopic surgery - evidence-based medicine - children - meta-analysis - randomized controlled trial

• References

• 1 Dingemann J, Kuebler JF, Ure BM. Laparoscopic and computer-assisted surgery in children. Scand J Surg 2011; 100 (4) 236-242
• 2 Kuebler JF, Ure BM. Minimally invasive surgery in the neonate. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 16 (3) 151-156
• 3 Ure BM, Bax NM, van der Zee DC. Laparoscopy in infants and children: a prospective study on feasibility and the impact on routine surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2000; 35 (8) 1170-1173
• 4 te Velde EA, Bax NM, Tytgat SH , et al. Minimally invasive pediatric surgery: Increasing implementation in daily practice and resident's training. Surg Endosc 2008; 22 (1) 163-166
• 5 OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. Levels of Evidence (March 2009)”. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025
• 6 Rangel SJ, Henry MC, Brindle M, Moss RL. Small evidence for small incisions: pediatric laparoscopy and the need for more rigorous evaluation of novel surgical therapies. J Pediatr Surg 2003; 38 (10) 1429-1433
• 7 Ostlie DJ, St Peter SD. The current state of evidence-based pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45 (10) 1940-1946
• 8 Ure BM. Enthusiasm, evidence and ethics: the Triple E of minimally invasive pediatric surgery. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48 (1) 27-33
• 9 Aziz O, Athanasiou T, Tekkis PP , et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2006; 243 (1) 17-27
• 10 Saha N, Saha DK, Rahman MA, Islam MK, Aziz MA. Comparison of post operative morbidity between laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children. Mymensingh Med J 2010; 19 (3) 348-352
• 11 Lintula H, Kokki H, Vanamo K, Valtonen H, Mattila M, Eskelinen M. The costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158 (1) 34-37
• 12 Little DC, Custer MD, May BH, Blalock SE, Cooney DR. Laparoscopic appendectomy: an unnecessary and expensive procedure in children?. J Pediatr Surg 2002; 37 (3) 310-317
• 13 Lintula H, Kokki H, Vanamo K. Single-blind randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in children. Br J Surg 2001; 88 (4) 510-514
• 14 McHoney M, Wade AM, Eaton S , et al. Clinical outcome of a randomized controlled blinded trial of open versus laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication in infants and children. Ann Surg 2011; 254 (2) 209-216
• 15 Koivusalo AI, Korpela R, Wirtavuori K, Piiparinen S, Rintala RJ, Pakarinen MP. A single-blinded, randomized comparison of laparoscopic versus open hernia repair in children. Pediatrics 2009; 123 (1) 332-337
• 16 Chan KL, Hui WC, Tam PK. Prospective randomized single-center, single-blind comparison of laparoscopic vs open repair of pediatric inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc 2005; 19 (7) 927-932
• 17 Saranga Bharathi R, Arora M, Baskaran V. Pediatric inguinal hernia: laparoscopic versus open surgery. JSLS 2008; 12 (3) 277-281
• 18 Yang C, Zhang H, Pu J, Mei H, Zheng L, Tong Q. Laparoscopic vs open herniorrhaphy in the management of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (9) 1824-1834
• 19 Alzahem A. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal herniotomy in infants and children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 2011; 27 (6) 605-612
• 20 Guo J, Liang Z, Zhang H , et al. Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy for non-palpable undescended testes in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Surg Int 2011; 27 (9) 943-952
• 21 Abolyosr A. Laparoscopic versus open orchiopexy in the management of abdominal testis: a descriptive study. Int J Urol 2006; 13 (11) 1421-1424
• 22 Ferro F, Spagnoli A, Zaccara A, De Vico A, La Sala E. Is preoperative laparoscopy useful for impalpable testis?. J Urol 1999; 162 (3 Pt 2) 995-996 , discussion 997
• 23 Mei H, Pu J, Yang C, Zhang H, Zheng L, Tong Q. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 2011; 25 (5) 727-736
• 24 Hall NJ, Van Der Zee J, Tan HL, Pierro A. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open pyloromyotomy. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (5) 774-778
• 25 Jia WQ, Tian JH, Yang KH , et al. Open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for pyloric stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2011; 21 (2) 77-81
• 26 Oomen MW, Hoekstra LT, Bakx R, Ubbink DT, Heij HA. Open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on major complications. Surg Endosc 2012; 26 (8) 2104-2110
• 27 Siddiqui S, Heidel RE, Angel CA, Kennedy Jr AP. Pyloromyotomy: randomized control trial of laparoscopic vs open technique. J Pediatr Surg 2012; 47 (1) 93-98
• 28 Borruto FA, Impellizzeri P, Antonuccio P , et al. Laparoscopic vs open varicocelectomy in children and adolescents: review of the recent literature and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg 2010; 45 (12) 2464-2469
• 29 Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312 (7023) 71-72
• 30 St Peter SD, Ostlie DJ. The necessity for prospective evidence for single-site umbilical laparoscopic surgery. Semin Pediatr Surg 2011; 20 (4) 232-236
• 31 Iqbal CW, Ostlie DJ. The minimally invasive approach to appendectomy: is less better?. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2012; 22 (3) 201-206
• 32 St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Juang D , et al. Single incision versus standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 2011; 254 (4) 586-590