Introduction
Intestinal malrotation (IM) is a rare congenital intestinal anomaly with an incidence of 0.2-1% in the pediatric population [
1]. It results from errors in fetal intestinal rotation and fixation. Without proper treatment, IM can result in fatal consequences such as midgut volvulus. The open Ladd’s procedure (OL), described by William E. Ladd in 1936, is the optimal treatment in symptomatic patients with IM [
2,
3]. However, long-term follow-up studies revealed that postoperative complications frequently occurred in children with IM who received OL [
4,
5]. Intestinal obstruction was observed in one in four of the patients after OL treatment [
4,
5].
Since being developed in 1995, the laparoscopic Ladd’s procedure (LL) has been increasingly used for the treatment of IM with the advancement of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques [
6‐
17]. Although several studies reported that the incidence of postoperative complications was lower in patients treated with LL, the benefit of LL is still controversial [
18,
19]. In comparison with OL, LL required a longer operation time and had a higher incidence of postoperative volvulus in previous studies [
18,
20]. Furthermore, evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of LL in small infants is lacking since the laparoscopic approach is more commonly performed in older children with IM [
17,
21‐
25]. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LL in small infants aged < 6 months in our hospital.
Discussion
Since LL was first developed in 1995 [
27], this technique has been gradually adopted throughout the world due to the benefits of MIS. In one article comparing 53 cases (mean age of 4.4 years) of LL versus 86 cases (mean age of 0.3 years) of OL, Huntington showed that LL led to a significantly shorter length of stay than OL in the initial 30-day postoperative period [
17]. This corresponds to the findings of Fraser [
28] and Stanfill [
6]; the mean length of stay in the LL group was 9 days compared with 16 days in the OL group. In our study, the median PHS was 5.5 days after LL, which was significantly shorter than 11.3 days (
P = 0.02) after OL and similar to a prompt recovery from other reports [
6,
17,
28,
29].
Although the literature is replete with articles and case series attesting to the safety and excellent outcome of the procedure [
30‐
33], LL can be challenging when performed in small infants [
11]. Some authors suggested caution when executing LL in neonates and infants younger than 3 months [
19,
27], which probably stemmed from the tendency for increased conversion rates in smaller children. Hsiao reported a 50% conversion rate in neonates but only 18% in older patients [
27], while Catania described a conversion rate up to 25.3% in their meta-analysis [
18]. In another study [
34], the overall conversion rate was 16% but increased to 19% when considering patients below 6 months of age and reached 37% in patients with a midgut volvulus. However, our case series showed that LL was feasible in small infants with a mean age of 35.6 ± 28.7 days. The rate of conversion to OL was 9.5%, which was advantageous over the other published series [
11,
13,
28,
35]. An average operating time (ORT) of 73.8 min was seen in LL, which was comparable to 66.8 min (
P = 0.76) in OL and comparable to other studies describing ORT for LL ranging from 53 to 120 min [
6,
10,
11,
25,
28,
35]. The 9.5% of complications after LL was not significantly different from the 11.8% (
P = 0.47) after OL, which was in a similar range as in other studies [
10,
11,
22,
24,
25,
30,
35].
There were some studies in which both laparoscopy and laparotomy were compared regarding recurrent volvulus in elderly children. The first, by Fraser [
28], found a postoperative recurrence of intestinal volvulus in six patients (2.4%). Remarkably, all six had an OL. In another study, Stanfill [
6] found a higher percentage of volvulus of 6% after LL vs. 1% after OL. A third study by Hsiao and Langer [
27] found no differences in the primary LL and primary or secondary OL, and neither had any recurrences. In other smaller series, where only laparoscopic data were collected, redo surgery rates ranged from 0 to 20% [
11,
24,
34,
36]. However, in our study, during midterm follow-up, 1 case (4.7%) of recurrence and 0 cases of adhesive ileus occurred after LL, with 1 case reoperated, while 0 cases (
P = 0.07) of relapse and 4 cases (
P = 0.09) of adhesive ileus occurred after OL, with 3 (
P = 0.55) reoperated.
Based on the above results, it is speculated that institutional factors, such as training opportunities and access to support, may play a role in the use of LL for small babies with IM. In addition, the experiences in laparoscopic surgery for small infants, such as thoracoscopic esophageal atresia repair and laparoscopic Kasai procedure, also helped surgeons quickly pass the learning curve of LL [
37]. Nonetheless, the technique of LL applied in small infants with limited abdominal working space is still demanding, even for veterans. The two cases converted to OL in the LL group in this study were neonates aged 7 days and 9 days, suggesting a relatively small working space to perform the LL operation. Intestinal swelling in one case further narrowed the working space to perform LL, allowing inadequate working space. Local bleeding near the Treitz ligament in the other case made the visualization of the operative field unclear. Poor vision and local bleeding always contribute to inadequate straightening of the duodenum, which is the most frequent finding at reoperation [
26]. The key to successful LM is accurate identification of the malrotated anatomy of the intestine and its mesentery and skillfully performing all steps of Ladd’s procedure for malrotation correction. Furthermore, the surgeon must explore the patency of the entire duodenum at the time of surgery because 28% of infants with duodenal atresia had malrotation and 19% of infants with jejunoileal atresia had malrotation, as reported by Vecchia [
38].
It is important to note several limitations to the current study. First, this was a retrospective, nonrandomized, controlled study. Second, LL and OL procedures may be carried out by different surgeons from the same surgical team, and different surgical experiences may generate different results. Third, the failed follow-up data of a small number of patients might bias the final statistical calculations.
Despite the limitations mentioned above, LL in small infants with IM was a safe and reliable method in well-trained hands, which had satisfactory cosmetic appearances and shorter TFF and PHS than OL. The midterm results after LL were comparable to those after OL. LL can be regarded as an alternative option for small infants with IM.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.