Minimally invasive pediatric surgery: Increasing implementation in daily practice and resident's training.

BACKGROUND: In 1998, the one-year experience in minimally invasive abdominal surgery in children at a pediatric training center was assessed. Seven years later, we determined the current status of pediatric minimally invasive surgery in daily practice and surgical training. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all children with intra-abdominal operations performed between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2005. RESULTS: The type of operations performed ranged from common interventions to demanding laparoscopic procedures. 81% of all abdominal procedures were performed laparoscopically, with a complication rate stable at 6.9%, and conversion rate decreasing from 10% to 7.4%, compared to 1998. There were six new advanced laparoscopic procedures performed in 2005 as compared to 1998. The children in the open operated group were significantly smaller and younger than in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). The majority (64.2%) of the laparoscopic procedures were performed by a trainee. There was no difference in the operating times of open versus laparoscopic surgery, or of procedures performed by trainees versus staff surgeons. Laparoscopy by trainees did not have a negative impact on complication or conversion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is an established approach in abdominal procedures in children, and does not hamper surgical training.

Duhamel procedure: a comparative retrospective study between an open and a laparoscopic technique.

BACKGROUND: Few studies are available comparing open with laparoscopic treatment of Hirschsprung's disease. This study compares a laparoscopic series of 30 patients with a historical open series of 25 patients. METHODS: The charts of all patients having had a Duhamel procedure in the period from June 1987 through July 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Open procedures were performed until March 1994. Patients with extended aganglionosis, pre-Duhamel ostomy, or syndrome were excluded from the study. End points were intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, time to first feeding, hospital stay, and outcome at follow-up such as stenosis, enterocolitis, constipation, fecal incontinence, and enuresis. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients had an open Duhamel (OD) and 30 had a laparoscopic one (LD). There were no differences in patient characteristics and there were no intraoperative complications in either group. Time to first oral feeds was significantly longer in the OD group as was the duration of hospital stay. No significant differences at follow-up were observed but there was a tendency for a higher enterocolitis rate in the LD group. In contrast, the adhesive obstruction and enuresis rates were higher in the OD group. Cosmetic results were superior in the LD group. CONCLUSIONS: Except for a significantly shorter hospital stay and shorter time to first oral feeds in favor of LD, no significant differences could be observed. The cosmetic result was not an end point but there was no doubt that it was better in the LD group. Although not statistically significant different, there were no adhesive bowel obstructions in the LD group compared with 3 of 25 in the OD group. Fecal incontinence was not encountered in either group.