Edward Hannon1, Rhianydd Williams2, Rosemary Allan2, Bruce Okoye3. 1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, St George's Hospital, Tooting, London, UK. Electronic address: edhannon1@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Department of Paediatric Radiology, St George's Hospital, Tooting, London, UK. 3. Department of Paediatric Surgery, St George's Hospital, Tooting, London, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To define current UK reduction practice and the reductions rates achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to radiologists at 26 UK centres. This assessed methods of reduction, equipment, personnel, and protocol usage. Standardized audit proforma were also sent to evaluate all reductions performed in 2011. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 26 centres (85%) replied. All used air enema under fluoroscopic guidance. Equipment was not standardized but could be broadly categorized into hand-pumped air-supply systems (seven centres) and pressurized air systems (15 centres). Seventeen centres followed a protocol based on British Society of Paediatric Radiologists (BSPR) guidelines. In 21 of the 22 centres a consultant paediatric radiologist led reductions and only 12 centres reported a surgeon being present. Three hundred and ten cases were reported across 22 centres. Cases per centre ranged from 0-31 (median 14). Reduction rates varied from 38-90% (median 71%). The overall perforation rate was 2.5%. Caseload did not significantly correlate with reduction rate, and there was no significant difference between the two types of equipment used. Median reduction rates were 15% higher in centres with a surgeon present at reduction (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Intussusception care in the UK lacks standardization of equipment and personnel involved. National reduction rates are lower than in current international literature. Improved standardization may lead to an improvement in reduction rates and a surgeon should always be present at reduction.
AIM: To define current UK reduction practice and the reductions rates achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic surveys were sent to radiologists at 26 UK centres. This assessed methods of reduction, equipment, personnel, and protocol usage. Standardized audit proforma were also sent to evaluate all reductions performed in 2011. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 26 centres (85%) replied. All used air enema under fluoroscopic guidance. Equipment was not standardized but could be broadly categorized into hand-pumped air-supply systems (seven centres) and pressurized air systems (15 centres). Seventeen centres followed a protocol based on British Society of Paediatric Radiologists (BSPR) guidelines. In 21 of the 22 centres a consultant paediatric radiologist led reductions and only 12 centres reported a surgeon being present. Three hundred and ten cases were reported across 22 centres. Cases per centre ranged from 0-31 (median 14). Reduction rates varied from 38-90% (median 71%). The overall perforation rate was 2.5%. Caseload did not significantly correlate with reduction rate, and there was no significant difference between the two types of equipment used. Median reduction rates were 15% higher in centres with a surgeon present at reduction (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Intussusception care in the UK lacks standardization of equipment and personnel involved. National reduction rates are lower than in current international literature. Improved standardization may lead to an improvement in reduction rates and a surgeon should always be present at reduction.
Authors: Larry A Binkovitz; Amy B Kolbe; Robert C Orth; Nadia F Mahood; Prabin Thapa; Nathan C Hull; Paul G Thacker; Christopher Moir Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2018-09-19