P Schmit1, W K Rohrschneider, D Christmann. 1. Paediatric Radiology Department, Groupe Hospitalier Necker Enfants-Malades, 149 rue de Sèvres, F-75 743 Paris Cedex 15, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed by European paediatric radiologists in the management of intussusception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal survey was sent to the European members of ESPR. Items surveyed included diagnostic imaging procedures (plain films, US, contrast enema [CE]), contrast medium used (barium, iodine, air, saline solution), and imaging technique used for monitoring during reduction (films, fluoroscopy, US). Multiple answers were possible. Other data, including contraindications, maximum pressure, pressure and irradiation monitoring, presence of a surgeon, sedation, number and duration of attempts, and hospitalisation were also obtained and analysed. RESULTS: There were 204 respondents (60.2 %). Regarding diagnosis, 72.5 % of respondents used plain radiographs, 93 % US, and 34 % CE. Reduction was performed using air (55 %), a barium suspension (32 %), iodinated contrast medium (24 %), or a saline solution (10 %). Reduction was monitored using fluoroscopy alone (46 %), fluoroscopy and radiographs (49.5 %), US alone (9.5 %), or a combination of radiology and US (18 %). Pressure was monitored by 81 % of respondents. Most respondents (82.4 %) used a maximum pressure between 100 and 120 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: US is widely used for diagnosing intussusception. For treatment, contrast medium and air reduction are used almost equally. A large number of radiologists are now performing intussusception reduction using US monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures performed by European paediatric radiologists in the management of intussusception. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal survey was sent to the European members of ESPR. Items surveyed included diagnostic imaging procedures (plain films, US, contrast enema [CE]), contrast medium used (barium, iodine, air, saline solution), and imaging technique used for monitoring during reduction (films, fluoroscopy, US). Multiple answers were possible. Other data, including contraindications, maximum pressure, pressure and irradiation monitoring, presence of a surgeon, sedation, number and duration of attempts, and hospitalisation were also obtained and analysed. RESULTS: There were 204 respondents (60.2 %). Regarding diagnosis, 72.5 % of respondents used plain radiographs, 93 % US, and 34 % CE. Reduction was performed using air (55 %), a barium suspension (32 %), iodinated contrast medium (24 %), or a saline solution (10 %). Reduction was monitored using fluoroscopy alone (46 %), fluoroscopy and radiographs (49.5 %), US alone (9.5 %), or a combination of radiology and US (18 %). Pressure was monitored by 81 % of respondents. Most respondents (82.4 %) used a maximum pressure between 100 and 120 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: US is widely used for diagnosing intussusception. For treatment, contrast medium and air reduction are used almost equally. A large number of radiologists are now performing intussusception reduction using US monitoring.
Authors: Rebecca Stein-Wexler; Thomas Sanchez; Glade E Roper; Anthony S Wexler; Robert P Arieli; Clark Ho; Joseph C Li; Alp Ozpinar; Steffan K Soosman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2010-07-21