136 Chapter 5 0.96); Duodenal obstruction 0.01 (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; n = 3/308; I2 = 0%; p = 0.77); Biliary atresia 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.06; n = 8/259; I2 = 0%; p = 0.91); Hirschsprung’s disease 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.06; n = 7/238; I2 = 0%; p = 0.93); Congenital diaphragmatic hernia 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01-0.10; n = 7/201; I2 = 34%; p = 0.91); Small intestinal atresia 0.03 (95% CI: 0.020.07; n = 7/201; I2 = 0%; p = 0.91); Omphalocele 0.07 (95% CI: 0.03-0.17; n = 10/131; I2 = 42%; p = 0.32). Choledochal cyst (N=57) and Meckel (N=46) are included in the overall proportion but were not reported separately as they did not meet the described criteria. Type of surgery We calculated pooled proportions separately for all cases operated by laparoscopy and all cases operated by laparotomy as described in Table 1. For infants treated with by laparoscopy the pooled proportion was 0.01 (95% CI: 0.01-0.03; n = 7/536; I2 = 0%; p = 0.00) [57, 76, 177, 178, 213, 324, 327, 335, 336, 338, 349, 352]. For infants treated by laparotomy the pooled proportion was 0.02 (95% CI: 0.01-0.04; n = 26/1098; I2 = 39%; p = 0.76) [42, 63, 76, 135, 138, 163, 176, 213, 291, 322, 328, 331, 339-341, 344, 345, 347, 349, 353]. Of the studies that did report on the location of the incision, transverse incision was most reported. Therefore, no subgroup analysis was done based on the location of incision. History of stoma All studies that reported on the history of stoma were articles describing anorectal malformations (ARM). Together, these studies contained four hernias. Two of which were not at the stoma site, but were reported as port-site hernia following laparoscopic assisted anorectoplasty [213]. The other two were seen at the site of stoma [215]. There were two articles describing ARM treatment without a stoma, no hernias occurred in these cohorts [216, 352]. Gastroschisis Subgroup analysis within the GS studies showed a reduced risk of IH for simple gastroschisis compared to complex (Figure 3); Odds ratio 0.18 (95% CI: 0.03-0.94; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%). Figure 3 - Forest plot simple vs complex GS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw