PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic-assisted operations compared with open operations, used for the treatment of @entity1963 ( @entity1963 ). METHODS: Pertinent studies were identified by searching of PubMed and Web of Science. We analyzed dichotomous variables by estimating odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables using the @entity353 ( @entity353 ) with the 95% CI. The random effect model was used to combine the results. RESULTS: Nine articles involving a total of 421 @entity1 were included in this meta-analysis. For operation time of @entity1 with @entity1963 , pooled data demonstrated a significantly shorter time in the laparoscopic operations group compared with open operations group ( @entity353 = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.49, -0.05). The intraoperative @entity190 was fewer in the laparoscopic operations group than open operations group ( @entity353 = -1.05, 95% CI = -1.56, -0.54). The length of postoperative hospital was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic operations group. The number of complications was significantly lower in laparoscopic operations group than open operations group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that laparoscopic-assisted operation is generally safer and more reliable than open operation for @entity1 with @entity1963 .

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic-assisted operations and open operations for XXXX : evidence from a meta-analysis.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity1963 :: ('MESH:D006627', 'Disease') :: ['HD', "Hirschsprung's disease"] @entity353 :: ('MESH:D015431', 'Disease') :: ['WMD', 'weighted mean difference'] @entity190 :: ('MESH:D006473', 'Disease') :: ['blood loss']
@entity1963 :: (MESH:D006627,Disease) :: ['Hirschsprung's disease']
