Comparative evaluation of endosurgical and open intervention in newborns with duodenal obstruction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Duodenal atresia is one of the most common malformations of the intestine in newborns. Both open surgical interventions and the laparoscopic method eliminate duodenal obstruction.
 AIM: This study conducts a comparative analysis of the results of treating newborns by these methods.
 MATERIALS AND METHODS: This paper summarizes the experience of treating 185 newborns operated in the clinic for duodenal obstruction. Two groups of patients are presented: the first included 110 children operated on laparoscopically, the second included 75 patients operated on by the open method. Both groups are comparable regarding newborn anthropometric data, age at the time of surgery, and the presence of concomitant anomalies. The study considered indicators characterizing the surgical intervention and the course of the postoperative period.
 RESULTS: In a series of studies, there were no differences between groups in interpreting the cause of obstruction (p = 0.184) and the presence of an incomplete turn (p = 0.134). Operating time in the laparoscopy group was higher than in the laparotomy group (75 min and 70 min, p 0.001). However, the reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, earlier initiation of feeding, transition to complete enteral nutrition and reduced length of hospital stay suggest the benefits of laparoscopy over laparotomy for treating congenital duodenal obstruction (p 0.001). The frequency of postoperative complications is not high in both groups (p = 0.634). The analysis results showed that laparoscopy does not complicate the intraoperative interpretation of organ relationships, provides a more favorable course during the postoperative period, and does not increase the number of postoperative complications.
 CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic method improves medical efficiency in treating newborns with duodenal obstruction than open surgery.