Study Design for Comparing Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Pull-Through and Transanal Pull-Through for Hirschsprung's Disease
A) Recommended Study Design and Reporting Guidelines
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the most appropriate study design for comparing primary laparoscopic abdominoperineal pull-through versus primary transanal pull-through for short segment Hirschsprung's disease in infants. This design will provide the highest level of evidence for determining which surgical approach offers better early outcomes at 12 weeks postoperatively 1.
For reporting the study results, the following guidelines should be followed:
- CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines for transparent reporting of randomized trials 1
- SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) for protocol development 1
B) Important Study Variables to Analyze
Primary Outcome Variables:
- Operative time (minutes) 2, 3
- Intraoperative blood loss (ml) 4, 5
- Length of hospital stay (days) 2, 3
- Time to first postoperative bowel movement (days) 4, 5
- Time to resumption of oral feeding (days) 4, 3
Secondary Outcome Variables:
Postoperative complications:
Functional outcomes at 12 weeks:
Technical variables:
Quality of life measures:
C) Prerequisites Before Starting the Study
Before initiating the study, institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee approval must be obtained. This is an absolute requirement for conducting research involving human subjects 1.
Additional prerequisites include:
- Informed consent from parents/guardians of all participating infants 1
- Registration of the trial in a public registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) 1
- Development of a detailed study protocol that includes:
- Establishment of a data safety monitoring board 1
- Surgeon expertise verification in both techniques to minimize technical bias 2, 3
- Standardized pathological examination protocol for resected specimens 6, 5
- Development of standardized data collection forms 1
The study should also ensure blinding of outcome assessors when possible to minimize bias in the evaluation of subjective outcomes 1, 3.