Objective: To compare the clinical efficacies between laparoscopic and traditional open Ladd’s procedure for intestinal malrotation. Methods: Publicly published studies comparing laparoscopic and open Ladd’s procedure in treatment of intestinal malrotation were collected. The operative time, time to food intake, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications between patients treated by the two methods were compared by Meta-analysis. Results: Four studies involving 454 subjects were adopted for Meta-analysis after screening, in which 89 patients receiving laparoscopic Ladd’s procedure (laparoscopic surgery group) and 365 patients undergoing open Ladd’s procedure (open surgery group). Compared with open surgery group, in laparoscopic surgery group, the operative time was not prolonged (P>0.05), but time to food intake, length of hospital stay and incidence of postoperative ileus were all reduced significantly (all P<0.05), and the incidence of postoperative volvulus was not increased (P>0.05). Conclusion: Laparoscopic Ladd’s procedure for intestinal malrotation has the advantages of faster postoperative recovery and fewer complications compared with open procedure.