Background: Pediatric laparoscopy (LS) is claimed to be superior to open surgery (OS). This review questions the scientific veracity of this assertion by systematic analysis of published evidences comparing LS versus OS in infants and children.
Materials and methods: Search of PubMed data base and the available literature on pediatric LS is analyzed.
Results: One hundred and eight articles out of a total of 426 papers were studied in detail.
Conclusions: High quality evidences indicate that LS is, at the best, as invasive as OS; and is at the worst, more invasive than conventional surgery. There are no high quality evidences to suggest that LS is minimally invasive, economically profitable and is associated with fewer complications than OS. Evidences are equally distributed for and against the benefits of LS regarding postoperative pain. Proof of cosmetic superiority of LS or otherwise is not available. The author concludes that pediatric laparoscopy, at the best, is simply comparable to laparotomy and its superiority over the latter could not be sustained on the basis of available scientific evidences. Benefits of laparoscopy appear to recede with younger age. Concerns are raised on the quick adoption, undue promotion and frequent misuse of laparoscopy in children.
Keywords: Hospital stay; abdominal surgery; children; infants; laparotomy; minimal invasive surgery; pediatric laparoscopy; postoperative pain; wound cosmesis.