Laparoscopic feeding-tube placement was linked with fewer major complications in children
A review favored laparoscopic approaches for major complications and repeat procedures, while operations took longer and several other outcomes showed no significant difference.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Across the reviewed studies, laparoscopic approaches were associated with fewer major complications and repeat interventions than endoscopic gastrostomy, but took longer to perform. Mortality and minor complications did not differ significantly. The abstract supports a comparison of procedural outcomes, while leaving uncertainty about the size of the differences and which children benefit most.
The abstract provides significance tests but no effect sizes, absolute complication rates, or follow-up duration. It also does not describe the designs of the included studies.
What researchers found
Laparoscopic versus endoscopic gastrostomy
LAP and LA-PEG each compared with PEG; the review reported statistical significance but no effect sizes or assessment timeframe.
Who the comparison covers
The review addressed stomach feeding-tube placement in children and excluded cases involving another procedure at the same time. It compared an endoscopic approach with laparoscopic placement and a combined laparoscopic–endoscopic approach.
What the null findings mean
For LAP versus PEG, the review found no significant differences in surgical conversion, hospital stay, or time before nutrition began. These findings do not prove equivalent outcomes, particularly without information about effect estimates and uncertainty.
The original publication
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy versus laparoscopic gastrostomy in pediatric age: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Cassaro F, Impellizzeri P, Bartolone A et al.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr · 2026
- PubMed ID
- 41229146
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.