The Safety and Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Pyloromyotomy Using 3-mm Electrocautery Hook versus Open Surgery for Treatment of Hypertrophic Pyloric Stenosis in Infants

Background: The standard of treatment for infants with hypertrophic pyloric stenosis is still pyloromyotomy. Recently, in most of the pediatric surgery centers laparoscopic pyloromyotomy has become popular. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of treatment in infants with hypertrophic pyloric stenosis between traditional open approach and laparoscopic pyloromyotomy using 3-mm electrocautery hook. Methods: A total of 125 infants, 104 (83.2%) males, with median age 33 (interquartile range, IQR 24, 40) days, who underwent pyloromyotomy because of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, between 2005 and 2021, were included in the retrospective study. Of that number 61 (48.8%) infants were allocated to the open group and 64 (51.2%) to the laparoscopic group. The groups were compared in regards to time to oral intake, duration of surgery, the type and rate of complications, rate of reoperations, frequency of vomiting after surgery, and the length of hospital stay. Results: No differences were found with regards to baseline characteristics between two investigated groups. Laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly better outcomes compared to open approach: shorter duration of surgery (35 min (IQR 30, 45) vs. 45 min (40, 57.5); p = 0.00008), shorter time to oral intake (6 h (IQR 4, 8) vs. 22 h (13.5, 24); p < 0.00001), lower frequency of postoperative vomiting (n = 10 (15.6%) vs. n = 19 (31.1%)), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (3 days (IQR 2, 3) vs. 6 days (4.5, 8); p < 0.00001). In regards to complications and reoperation rates, both were lower in the laparoscopic pyloromyotomy group but the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.157 and p = 0.113, respectively). The most common complication in both groups was mucosal perforation (open group, n = 3 (4.9%); laparoscopic group, n = 2 (3.1%)) followed by wound infection in open group, n = 3 (4.9%). No cases of wound infection were recorded in the laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Open and laparoscopic pyloromyotomy are equally safe and effective in treatment of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. Laparoscopic technique is associated with faster recovery, shorter duration of surgery and shorter duration of hospital stay.

Getting it right first time: implementation of laparoscopic pyloromyotomy without a learning curve

Introduction Laparoscopic pyloromyotomy is now an accepted procedure for the treatment of pyloric stenosis. However, it is clear that during the implementation period there are significantly higher incidences of mucosal perforation and incomplete pyloromyotomy. We describe how we introduced a new laparoscopic procedure without the complications associated with the learning curve. Materials and methods Five consultants tasked one surgeon to pilot and establish laparoscopic pyloromyotomy before mentoring the others until they were performing the procedure independently; all agreed to use exactly the same instruments and operative technique. This involved a 5mm 30-degree infra-umbilical telescope with two 3mm instruments. Data were collected prospectively. Results Between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017, 140 laparoscopic pyloromyotomies were performed (median age 27 days, range 13–133 days, male to female ratio 121:19). Fifty-five per cent of procedures were performed by trainees. Complications were one mucosal perforation and one inadequate pyloromyotomy. There were no injuries to other organs, problems with wound dehiscence or other significant complications. The median time of discharge was one day (range one to six days). Conclusion Our rate of perforation and incomplete pyloromyotomy was 1.4%, which is equivalent to the best published series of either open or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy. We believe that this resulted from the coordinated implementation of the procedure using a single technique to reduce clinical variability, increase mentoring and improve training. This approach appears self-evident but is rarely described in the literature of learning curves. In this age of increased accountability, new technologies should be incorporated into routine practice without an increase in morbidity to patients.