MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 74 patients with intussusception were divided into two groups: 43 cases in 39 patients between April 1974 and June 1988 were treated under general anesthesia, and 39 cases in 35 patients between July 1988 and January 1994 were treated without it. We compared the success rates of barium reduction of intussusception in the two groups and used Fisher's exact probability test to assess whether they differed significantly. RESULTS: The overall success rates with general anesthesia and without general anesthesia were 91% (39/43) and 95% (37/39), respectively. The use of general anesthesia did not significantly affect the success rate of barium reduction (p > 0.3). CONCLUSION: The use of general anesthesia for hydrostatic barium reduction of intussusception did not improve the success rate of this procedure. Therefore we recommend that, in view of its associated disadvantages, general anesthesia should not be used during this procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 74 patients with intussusception were divided into two groups: 43 cases in 39 patients between April 1974 and June 1988 were treated under general anesthesia, and 39 cases in 35 patients between July 1988 and January 1994 were treated without it. We compared the success rates of barium reduction of intussusception in the two groups and used Fisher's exact probability test to assess whether they differed significantly. RESULTS: The overall success rates with general anesthesia and without general anesthesia were 91% (39/43) and 95% (37/39), respectively. The use of general anesthesia did not significantly affect the success rate of barium reduction (p > 0.3). CONCLUSION: The use of general anesthesia for hydrostatic barium reduction of intussusception did not improve the success rate of this procedure. Therefore we recommend that, in view of its associated disadvantages, general anesthesia should not be used during this procedure.