Enema reduction of intussusception: the success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction
- PMID: 26719697
- PMCID: PMC4687953
- DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S92169
Enema reduction of intussusception: the success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction
Abstract
Purpose: Intussusception is a common surgical emergency in infants and children. The incidence of intussusception is from one to four per 2,000 infants and children. If there is no peritonitis, perforation sign on abdominal radiographic studies, and nonresponsive shock, nonoperative reduction by pneumatic or hydrostatic enema can be performed. The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of both the methods.
Methods: Two institutional retrospective cohort studies were performed. All intussusception patients (ICD-10 code K56.1) who had visited Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital from January 2006 to December 2012 were included in the study. The data were obtained by chart reviews and electronic databases, which included demographic data, symptoms, signs, and investigations. The patients were grouped according to the method of reduction followed into pneumatic reduction and hydrostatic reduction groups with the outcome being the success of the reduction technique.
Results: One hundred and seventy episodes of intussusception occurring in the patients of Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital were included in this study. The success rate of pneumatic reduction was 61% and that of hydrostatic reduction was 44% (P=0.036). Multivariable analysis and adjusting of the factors by propensity scores were performed; the success rate of pneumatic reduction was 1.48 times more than that of hydrostatic reduction (P=0.036, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.03-2.13).
Conclusion: Both pneumatic and hydrostatic reduction can be performed safely according to the experience of the radiologist or pediatric surgeon and hospital setting. This study showed that pneumatic reduction had a higher success rate than hydrostatic reduction.
Keywords: hydrostatic reduction; intussusception; pneumatic reduction; success rate.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception in infants in a developing world: saline hydrostatic or pneumatic technique?Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Mar;182(3):1049-1056. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04765-5. Epub 2022 Dec 23. Eur J Pediatr. 2023. PMID: 36562833 Clinical Trial.
-
A randomized trial of pneumatic reduction versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception in pediatric patients.J Pediatr Surg. 2018 Aug;53(8):1464-1468. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.08.005. Epub 2017 Aug 8. J Pediatr Surg. 2018. PMID: 28827051 Clinical Trial.
-
Prognostic indicators for failed nonsurgical reduction of intussusception.Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016 Aug 9;12:1231-7. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S109785. eCollection 2016. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016. PMID: 27563245 Free PMC article.
-
An institutional analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of pneumatic versus hydrostatic reduction for pediatric intussusception.Surgery. 2013 Aug;154(2):328-34. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.04.036. Surgery. 2013. PMID: 23889959 Review.
-
Intussusception and COVID-19 in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel). 2022 Nov 14;9(11):1745. doi: 10.3390/children9111745. Children (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36421194 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Risk factors of bowel perforation during hydrostatic enema reduction for paediatric intussusception.Ann Med. 2024 Dec;56(1):2417181. doi: 10.1080/07853890.2024.2417181. Epub 2024 Oct 23. Ann Med. 2024. PMID: 39444147 Free PMC article.
-
Risk factors for failure of enema reduction of intussusception in children.Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 6;14(1):20786. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-71289-3. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39242784 Free PMC article.
-
Epidemiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of 586 cases of intussusception: a 4-year retrospective study in China.Front Pediatr. 2024 May 14;12:1379168. doi: 10.3389/fped.2024.1379168. eCollection 2024. Front Pediatr. 2024. PMID: 38808103 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of the success rate of pneumatic reduction in intussusception between general anesthesia and deep sedation: a randomized controlled trial.Pediatr Surg Int. 2023 Apr 25;39(1):186. doi: 10.1007/s00383-023-05474-2. Pediatr Surg Int. 2023. PMID: 37095299 Clinical Trial.
-
Ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception in infants in a developing world: saline hydrostatic or pneumatic technique?Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Mar;182(3):1049-1056. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04765-5. Epub 2022 Dec 23. Eur J Pediatr. 2023. PMID: 36562833 Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Columbani PM, Scholz S. Intussusception. In: Coran AG, Adzick NS, Krummel TM, Laberge J-M, Shamberger RC, Caldamone AA, editors. Pediatric Surgery. 7th ed. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2012. pp. 1093–1110.
-
- Aronson PL, Henderson AA, Anupindi SA, et al. Comparison of clinicians to radiologists in assessment of abdominal radiographs for suspected intussusception. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013;29(5):584–587. - PubMed
-
- Alletag MJ, Riera A, Langhan ML, Chen L. Use of emergency ultrasound in the diagnostic evaluation of an infant with vomiting. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27(10):986–989. - PubMed
-
- Bines JE, Kohl KS, Forster J, et al. Acute intussusception in infants and children as an adverse event following immunization: case definition and guidelines of data collection, analysis, and presentation. Vaccine. 2004;22(5–6):569–574. - PubMed
-
- Bekdash B, Marven SS, Sprigg A. Reduction of intussusception: defining a better index of successful non-operative treatment. Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43(6):649–656. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
