BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with adult intussusception and determine how this was influenced by evolving computed tomography (CT) technology. METHODS: Adults treated between 1978 and 2013 for intussusception were reviewed. CT utilization and utilization of multislice technology over time were determined. Sensitivity of CT was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were identified. CT utilization was 72% and it increased over time. The number of channels ranged from 1 to 128. CT sensitivity was greater than 85% for single and multislice scanners. A lead point was identified in 69% of patients and a malignancy in 40%. Surgical exploration was required in 60% of patients and 40% were managed nonoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of intussusception in adults is increasing over time, particularly idiopathic intussusception. This is associated with increased utilization of highly sensitive CT technology, which facilitates the safe nonoperative management in many patients.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with adult intussusception and determine how this was influenced by evolving computed tomography (CT) technology. METHODS: Adults treated between 1978 and 2013 for intussusception were reviewed. CT utilization and utilization of multislice technology over time were determined. Sensitivity of CT was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were identified. CT utilization was 72% and it increased over time. The number of channels ranged from 1 to 128. CT sensitivity was greater than 85% for single and multislice scanners. A lead point was identified in 69% of patients and a malignancy in 40%. Surgical exploration was required in 60% of patients and 40% were managed nonoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of intussusception in adults is increasing over time, particularly idiopathic intussusception. This is associated with increased utilization of highly sensitive CT technology, which facilitates the safe nonoperative management in many patients.
Authors: Rachel A Lindor; M Fernanda Bellolio; Annie T Sadosty; Frank Earnest; Daniel Cabrera Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: M Barussaud; N Regenet; X Briennon; B de Kerviler; P Pessaux; N Kohneh-Sharhi; P A Lehur; A Hamy; J Leborgne; J C le Neel; E Mirallie Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2005-06-11 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Baskaran Sundaram; Carl N Miller; Richard H Cohan; Matthew J Schipper; Isaac R Francis Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jennifer D Rea; Mark E Lockhart; Donald E Yarbrough; Ruth R Leeth; Samuel E Bledsoe; Ronald H Clements Journal: Am Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Katherine Mandeville; Ming Chien; F Anthony Willyerd; Gerald Mandell; Mark A Hostetler; Blake Bulloch Journal: Pediatr Emerg Care Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 1.454
Authors: Balwinder Singh; Amandeep Singh; Adil Ahmed; Gregory A Wilson; Brian W Pickering; Vitaly Herasevich; Ognjen Gajic; Guangxi Li Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Colin McQuade; Peadar S Waters; Ciara O'Brien; Stephen Crowther; William Torreggiani; Dara O Kavanagh Journal: Int J Surg Case Rep Date: 2018-02-14