Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for pediatric ovarian dermoids

Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Background: With increased surgeon comfort using laparoscopy, we hypothesized resection of pediatric ovarian dermoids using laparoscopy would yield a shorter length of stay and no increase in morbidity or recurrence compared to laparotomy. Methods: A retrospective review was performed amongst eleven pediatric hospitals. Patients aged 2 to 21 who underwent resection of an ovarian dermoid from 2010 to 2020 were included. Patient characteristics, operative details, and outcomes by approach were evaluated using Chi-squared and Wilcoxon-Mann tests. Results: 466 patients were included, with a median age of 14.4 and median follow-up of 4.0 months. 279 patients underwent laparoscopy (60%), 139 laparotomy (30%), and 48 laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (10%). There were no differences in rates of tumor spillage by approach (p = 0.15). 65% underwent ovarian-sparing surgery and 35% underwent oophorectomy. Length of stay was significantly shorter amongst patients who underwent laparoscopy (1 day versus 2 days for laparotomy and converted, p<0.0001). There were no differences in rates of suspected recurrence or reoperation (p = 0.19 and p = 0.57, respectively). Conclusion: Patients who underwent laparoscopy experienced no differences in the rates of tumor spillage, recurrence, or reoperation and had a shorter length of stay compared to laparotomy. Laparoscopy is an acceptable approach for resection of pediatric ovarian dermoids.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1008-1012
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of pediatric surgery
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2022


  • Mature cystic teratoma
  • Ovarian neoplasm
  • Tumor spillage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for pediatric ovarian dermoids'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this