Introduction: Intussusception is a common cause of intestinal obstruction in infants and children. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (USGHR) with saline is considered the gold standard with a success rate of more than 90%. Hydrostatic reduction with laparoscopic assistance has its own advantage of direct visualisation, assessment of bowel vascularity and controlled distension. The choice of procedure depends on available resources and surgeon’s preference. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the two methods, i.e., laparoscopic-assisted hydrostatic reduction (LAHR) and USGHR under general anaesthesia (GA). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study carried out at two different centres over a 3-year period. All patients of intussusception were managed by either hydrostatic reduction with saline under ultrasound guidance or hydrostatic reduction with laparoscopic assistance. Both the procedures were done in operation theatre under GA. The operating time and amount of fluid used for reduction were noted. Results: There were 27 patients in Group 1 (USGHR) and 20 patients in Group 2 (LAHR). The two groups were similar in terms of demographic parameters. The various outcomes such as number of attempts for reduction, fluid required for reduction, time to start oral feeds, complication and length of stay were similar in both the groups. The mean operating time for Group 1 was 19.4 ± 4.5 min and for Group 2 was 34.9 ± 4.8 min (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the procedures fare equally in terms of outcome except mean operating time, therefore, LAHR is a good alternative to USGHR in resource-poor nations where logistics of intraoperative ultrasound may not be present.