PURPOSE: Various pull-through techniques, both open and laparoscopic, have been performed for Hirschsprung disease. Our study compares open and laparoscopic Duhamel pull-through. METHODS: After ethical approval, we reviewed all children (n = 181) with Hirschsprung disease admitted to our institution between 1999 and 2009. We excluded total colonic aganglionosis (n = 14), previous pull-through done elsewhere (n = 33), or follow-up performed abroad (n = 58). Open and laparoscopic pull-through were done in the same period according to surgeon preference. Data were analyzed using χ(2) or Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Seventy-six children had a Duhamel pull-through for rectosigmoid aganglionosis. Operative time, time to full feeds, and length of hospital stay were similar in each group. OPEN (N = 41): Fifteen children (37%) required 33 further procedures. Fourteen had procedures for persistent constipation, including redo Duhamel (n = 2), stoma formation (n = 2), spur division (n = 2), and dilatation/stretch/Botox/rectal biopsy/manual evacuation (n = 23). Three children had other procedures (adhesiolysis [n = 2] and incisional hernia repair [n = 1]). LAPAROSCOPIC (N = 35): Fourteen children (40%) required 30 further procedures. Eleven had procedures for persistent constipation, including redo Duhamel (n = 1), stoma formation (n = 4), spur division (n = 9), and dilatation/stretch/rectal biopsy (n = 8). Three children had other procedures (adhesiolysis [n = 1] and incisional hernia repair [n = 2]). There were 4 conversions. CONCLUSION: Open and laparoscopic Duhamel pull-through have similar outcomes. We show that the techniques have comparable operative times and hospital stay.
PURPOSE: Various pull-through techniques, both open and laparoscopic, have been performed for Hirschsprung disease. Our study compares open and laparoscopic Duhamel pull-through. METHODS: After ethical approval, we reviewed all children (n = 181) with Hirschsprung disease admitted to our institution between 1999 and 2009. We excluded total colonic aganglionosis (n = 14), previous pull-through done elsewhere (n = 33), or follow-up performed abroad (n = 58). Open and laparoscopic pull-through were done in the same period according to surgeon preference. Data were analyzed using χ(2) or Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Seventy-six children had a Duhamel pull-through for rectosigmoid aganglionosis. Operative time, time to full feeds, and length of hospital stay were similar in each group. OPEN (N = 41): Fifteen children (37%) required 33 further procedures. Fourteen had procedures for persistent constipation, including redo Duhamel (n = 2), stoma formation (n = 2), spur division (n = 2), and dilatation/stretch/Botox/rectal biopsy/manual evacuation (n = 23). Three children had other procedures (adhesiolysis [n = 2] and incisional hernia repair [n = 1]). LAPAROSCOPIC (N = 35): Fourteen children (40%) required 30 further procedures. Eleven had procedures for persistent constipation, including redo Duhamel (n = 1), stoma formation (n = 4), spur division (n = 9), and dilatation/stretch/rectal biopsy (n = 8). Three children had other procedures (adhesiolysis [n = 1] and incisional hernia repair [n = 2]). There were 4 conversions. CONCLUSION: Open and laparoscopic Duhamel pull-through have similar outcomes. We show that the techniques have comparable operative times and hospital stay.