Home | About Us | Current Issue | Ahead of print | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | Editorial Board | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
     Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Official journal of the Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons         
 Users Online:559 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

Table of Contents   
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 79

Re-pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims

Department of Surgery and The Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, and The School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia

Date of Web Publication18-Mar-2011

Correspondence Address:
Aniruddh V Deshpande
Department of Surgery, Locked Bag 4001, Corner Hainsworth Street and Hawkesbury Road, Westmead, 2145, NSW
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0971-9261.78140

Rights and Permissions


How to cite this article:
Deshpande AV. Re-pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2011;16:79

How to cite this URL:
Deshpande AV. Re-pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg [serial online] 2011 [cited 2023 Mar 31];16:79. Available from: https://www.jiaps.com/text.asp?2011/16/2/79/78140


I have read Professor Raveenthiran's article titled "Pediatric Laparoscopy- Facts and factitious claims", published recently [1] with keen interest. The drafting of this manuscript must have been an onerous task. The author deserves praise for this initiative. I concur with the author's conclusion that laparoscopy is not necessarily "minimally invasive" and "minimal access surgery" is a more accurate term to use.

However, it is important to minimize bias when reviewing evidence. The following methodological weaknesses in this work may have resulted in a bias.

Poorly focused search strategy. A more comprehensive use of search terms and searching of EMBASE and CENTRAL databases in addition to Medline would have been appropriate. [2] The author could have been more explicit in detailing the research question(s) and corresponding search strategies. [2],[3] I wonder whether each of the subtopics deserved an independent search strategy, given the differences in the outcomes of interest. [2] For example, are we justified in excluding publications on robotic surgery, which is a subset of laparoscopy, when searching for evidence relating to family/ patient perspectives on operative scars or cosmesis? A more focused search [Table 1] helps in identifying at least two additional publications, [4],[5] which specifically discuss the relevance of scars/ cosmesis to the families and the children.
Table 1: Search strategy focused at identifying studies which discuss importance of cosmesis and operative scars in children with reference to laparoscopic surgery (Medline 1950-2010)

Click here to view

Data extraction . It may have been worthwhile for the author to check the cross references or contact the experts to see if the analyzed data is truly representative of the current literature on the topic [2] and to have the abstracts screened by two independent reviewers instead of one. [3] This would minimize publication and selection bias.

Data synthesis . It is evident that results of studies comparing postoperative pain in laparoscopic and open procedures in children show significant qualitative differences. Appropriate data synthesis and reporting of pooled estimates would have been preferable. [3]

Failing these, the risk of introduction of an unintentional bias in the identification of relevant literature and its analysis remains high. As a result, one wonders if the author's conclusions are disproportionately stronger in comparison to the evidence provided by him.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings, this remains an important publication, which should serve to encourage studies aimed at generating high level of evidence in both, surgical outcomes and patient perspectives in pediatric minimal access surgery.

   Acknowledgement Top

I would like to thank Dr Hugh Martin, Department of Surgery, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, for his guidance.

   References Top

1.Raveenthiran V. Pediatric laparoscopy: Facts and factitious claims. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2010;15:1222-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1:447-58.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. In: Julian PT, Green H, Green S, editors. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2008. The Cochrane Collaboration. ISBN: 978-0-470-69951-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Freilich DA, Penna FJ, Nelson CP, Retik AB, Nguyen HT. Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: Results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey. J Urol 2010;183:704-8.   Back to cited text no. 4
5.Yamataka A, Satake S, Kaneko K, Ohtomo Y, Okada Y, Lane GJ, et al. Outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic or open surgery versus conservative management for multicystic dysplastic kidney. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2005;15:190-3.  Back to cited text no. 5


  [Table 1]


Print this article  Email this article


    Similar in PUBMED
    Article in PDF (203 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded125    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice

  2005 - Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 

Online since 1st May '05