Literature DB >> 16932911

Reduction of intussusception in infants by a pediatric surgical team: improvement in safety and outcome.

Tadaharu Okazaki1, Yuki Ogasawara, Nana Nakazawa, Hiroyuki Kobayashi, Yoshifumi Kato, Geoffrey J Lane, Atsuyuki Yamataka, Takeshi Miyano.   

Abstract

Commonly, reduction of intussusception is performed by experienced radiologists. We review the performance of a pediatric surgical team for treating intussusception according to a standard protocol and present our findings. Three hundred and seventy eight patients with signs and symptoms of intussusception we treated from 1980 to 2005 were reviewed. Hydrostatic reduction (HR) was performed using a water-soluble contrast agent under fluoroscopy unless there was a serious condition clinically. Before 1998, HR was performed exclusively by pediatric surgical trainees (period A). In 1998, a standard protocol (double-balloon tube, maximum pressure of 120 cm H2O, repeated a maximum of five times, and HR performed by a pediatric surgical trainee under the supervision of a consultant pediatric surgeon) was adopted (period B). As part of the protocol, the operating room was notified of the HR procedure and placed on call for emergency surgery. Of the 378 patients, 21 required immediate laparotomy due to serious general condition, leaving 138 during period A and 219 during period B who had HR. Patient age, sex, and duration of symptoms (period A, 14.5 +/- 7.8 h; period B, 13.1 +/- 9.9 h) were not statistically significant. Success of HR during period A was 64.5%, and significantly improved for period B at 94.5% (P < 0.01). During period B, 128 of our patients had been referred from elsewhere for failed reduction attempted by radiologists or pediatricians. We were able to perform HR successfully in 118 of these (92.2%). During period A, it was significantly less at 54.0% (P < 0.01). Bowel perforation during HR occurred in two patients during period A (1.4%) and two patients during period B (0.9%), but the latter cases were transferred immediately for emergency surgery with good outcome. Reduction of intussusception by a pediatric surgical team would appear to be significantly safer with better outcome, and is thus more efficient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16932911     DOI: 10.1007/s00383-006-1766-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int        ISSN: 0179-0358            Impact factor:   1.827


  16 in total

1.  Intestinal intussusception survey about diagnostic and nonsurgical therapeutic procedures.

Authors:  P Schmit; W K Rohrschneider; D Christmann
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1999-10

2.  The ins and outs of intussusception: history and management over the past fifty years.

Authors:  C F Davis; A J McCabe; P A M Raine
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.545

Review 3.  The clinical implications of non-idiopathic intussusception.

Authors:  R T Blakelock; S W Beasley
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  Intussusception in children: US-guided pneumatic reduction--initial experience.

Authors:  C H Yoon; H J Kim; H W Goo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Results of air pressure enema reduction of intussusception: 6,396 cases in 13 years.

Authors:  J Z Guo; X Y Ma; Q H Zhou
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 2.545

6.  Intussusception reduced by barium enema. Outcome and short-term follow-up.

Authors:  W A Bonadio
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 1.168

7.  Intussusception: clinical and radiographic factors influencing reducibility.

Authors:  C A Stephenson; J J Seibert; J D Strain; C M Glasier; R E Leithiser; V Iqbal
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1989

8.  Pneumatic reduction of intussusception: clinical experience and factors affecting outcome.

Authors:  V G McDermott; T Taylor; S Mackenzie; G M Hendry
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.350

9.  Intussusception: current management in infants and children.

Authors:  K W West; B Stephens; D W Vane; J L Grosfeld
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Intussusception: influence of age on reducibility.

Authors:  C Jennings; J Kelleher
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1984
View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Reduction of intussusception: defining a better index of successful non-operative treatment.

Authors:  Basil Bekdash; Sean S Marven; Alan Sprigg
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-12-20

2.  Ultrasound-guided Hartmann's solution enema: first-choice procedure for reducing idiopathic intussusception.

Authors:  D Di Renzo; M Colangelo; G Lauriti; F De Girolamo; A Persico; P Lelli Chiesa
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Needle decompression to avoid tension pneumoperitoneum and hemodynamic compromise after pneumatic reduction of pediatric intussusception.

Authors:  Sara C Fallon; Eugene S Kim; Bindi J Naik-Mathuria; Jed G Nuchtern; Christopher I Cassady; Jose Ruben Rodriguez
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2013-01-03

4.  Air enema reduction of intussusception: a registrar-led, protocol-driven service is safe and effective.

Authors:  Edward John Hannon; Rosemary Anne Allan; April Samantha Negus; Feilim Murphy; Bruce Obi Okoye
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 1.827

5.  Radiographic signs predictive of success of hydrostatic reduction of intussusception.

Authors:  Toshiaki Takahashi; Tadaharu Okazaki; Hiroko Watayo; Yuki Ogasawara; Nana Nakazawa; Yoshifumi Kato; Geoffrey J Lane; Atsuyuki Yamataka
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 1.827

6.  Selection of Pneumatic Reduction in Invagination Treatment and the Factors Affecting the Success of This Method.

Authors:  Mustafa Erman Dörterler; Osman Hakan Kocaman
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-10-16
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.