• DOI:10.1055/s-2008-1039006
• Corpus ID: 5057518

Access to the hypertrophic pylorus: does it make a difference to the patient?

@article{Tander2009AccessTT,
  title={Access to the hypertrophic pylorus: does it make a difference to the patient?},
  author={Burak Tander and Christina M. Shanti and Michael D. Klein},
  journal={European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie},
  year={2009},
  volume={19 1},
  pages={
          14-6
        }
}

• B. Tander, C. Shanti, M. Klein
• Published 1 February 2009
• Medicine
• European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie

BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of different access methods for the treatment of pyloric stenosis (PS).

METHODS
Since 2001, we have operated on children with PS using three different access methods: classic right upper quadrant transverse incision (TI), incision on the superior umbilical fold (UI) and laparoscopic (L). We reviewed the records of these children with special emphasis on the number and characteristics of complications, operative time, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS
We identified 256 patients (212 M, 44 F) with a mean age of 36 days. 138 procedures were performed using TI, 18 with UI and 100 laparoscopically. The mean operative time for patients with TI was 35.9 +/- 8.6 min, and for those with UI 31.8 +/- 9.3 min. Patients in the L group had a mean operative time of 29.8 +/- 11 min. Although the operative time for TI was significantly greater than that of L, the differences between the TI and UI groups and between UI and L groups did not reach statistical significance. For the TI, UI and L groups, the mean overall LOS was 3.22 +/- 0.3 days, 3.39 +/- 0.4 days and 2.94 +/- 0.2 days, and the mean postoperative LOS was 1.52 +/- 0.1 days, 1.44 +/- 0.2 days, and 1.56 +/- 0.1 days, respectively. No significant difference in LOS was found. One patient from each group had a wound infection. While three of four perforations occurred in the L group and the fourth was in the TI group, the difference in rates of perforation among the groups did not achieve statistical significance. The perforation during open surgery was typical, occurring on the duodenal end during spreading of the pyloric muscle. The perforations in the L group were atypical: one was a grasper injury to the duodenum; another was on the gastric end of the pyloric incision and the third occurred not during spreading of the pyloric muscle but during the cutting of it. The pylorus was relatively small in this particular case (12 mm in length).

CONCLUSION
While the operative time of laparoscopic repair for PS is less than in either of the open approaches, laparoscopic surgery may increase the risk for atypical injuries to the bowel. Therefore, proper attention should be paid to dissection of the structures and the selection of laparoscopic instruments. Incision on the superior umbilical fold is a reasonable alternative access for the treatment of PS.