Literature DB >> 25542940

Nonsurgical management of childhood intussusception: retrospective comparison between sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance.

Thomas Ray Sanchez1, Brandon Doskocil2, Rebecca Stein-Wexler2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of sonography and fluoroscopy in guiding intussusception reduction and evaluate possible complications for each procedure.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed by reviewing 31 cases of intussusception diagnosed and managed between January 2009 and January 2014 at the University of California, Davis Children's Hospital, after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board. To eliminate other confounding factors related to technique and experience, only cases performed by 2 pediatric radiologists who exclusively used either fluoroscopy or sonography were compared.
RESULTS: Fourteen patients (age range, 6-35 months) were treated by sonographic guidance using saline, and another 17 patients (age range, 2-57 months) were treated by fluoroscopy using either air or a water-soluble contrast agent. All 14 patients (100%) who underwent sonographically guided reduction were successfully treated without complications. Fourteen of the 17 patients (82%) who underwent fluoroscopic guidance had successful reductions. One complication of perforation was documented.
CONCLUSIONS: Sonography and fluoroscopy are equally effective in the nonsurgical management of childhood intussusception. The absence of ionizing radiation and better visualization of possible pathologic lead points makes sonography the ideal method.
© 2015 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  hydrostatic reduction; intussusception; pediatric ultrasound; sonography

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25542940     DOI: 10.7863/ultra.34.1.59

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Ultrasound Med        ISSN: 0278-4297            Impact factor:   2.153


  5 in total

Review 1.  Intussusception: past, present and future.

Authors:  Emily A Edwards; Nicholas Pigg; Jesse Courtier; Matthew A Zapala; John D MacKenzie; Andrew S Phelps
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04

2.  Risk factors for short-term recurrent intussusception and reduction failure after ultrasound-guided saline enema.

Authors:  Gang Shen; Chuanguang Zhang; Junfeng Li; Jing Zhang; Yongdong Liu; Zheming Guan; Qiang Hu
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  Ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception: a safe and effective method performed by pediatric surgeons.

Authors:  Stefan Gfroerer; Henning Fiegel; Udo Rolle
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  Sonographic guided hydrostatic saline enema reduction of childhood intussusception: a prospective study.

Authors:  Ademola Olusegun Talabi; Olusola Comfort Famurewa; Kayode Taiwo Bamigbola; Oludayo Adedapo Sowande; Babalola Ishmael Afolabi; Olusanya Adejuyigbe
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2018-11-21

5.  Prognostic indicators for failed nonsurgical reduction of intussusception.

Authors:  Jiraporn Khorana; Jesda Singhavejsakul; Nuthapong Ukarapol; Mongkol Laohapensang; Jakraphan Siriwongmongkol; Jayanton Patumanond
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 2.423

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.