Min Zhang1, Xiaohui Zhou1, Qiang Hu1, Linyuan Jin2. 1. Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Changsha Central Hospital, Nanhua University, 161 Shaoshan South Road, Yuhua District, Changsha, Hunan 410004, P.R. China. 2. Department of Ultrasound Diagnostics, Changsha Central Hospital, Nanhua University, 161 Shaoshan South Road, Yuhua District, Changsha, Hunan 410004, P.R. China. Electronic address: 371938634@qq.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinical treatment of ileocolic intussusception is different from that of small-bowel intussusception (SBI). This study aimed to analyze the differences between the two groups using ultrasonoscopy to avoid misdiagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of intussusception in patients aged 0-18 years from September 2018 to March 2020. Clinical and ultrasonoscopy data were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 183 cases of intussusception were included in this study (123 cases of SBI and 60 of ileocolic intussusception). Ultrasonoscopy features that were significantly different between the two groups (p<0.05) included the lesion diameter, fat core thickness, outer wall thickness, lymph nodes inside intussusception, and lesion length. In the SBI group, 85% (104/123) of the normal ileocecal region was found in the right lower quadrant and 98% (120/123) of the normal ascending colon was found in the right side of the abdomen. In the ileocolic intussusception group, none of the normal ileocecal region was found and the ascending colon was found in only 5 cases (8%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ultrasonography is the most practical method to distinguish SBI from ileocolic intussusception. In addition to comparing the differences between lesions, conventional probing of the ileocecal region and ascending colon will help to accurately differentiate between the types of intussusception and avoid misdiagnosis. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic.
PURPOSE: The clinical treatment of ileocolic intussusception is different from that of small-bowel intussusception (SBI). This study aimed to analyze the differences between the two groups using ultrasonoscopy to avoid misdiagnosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of intussusception in patients aged 0-18 years from September 2018 to March 2020. Clinical and ultrasonoscopy data were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 183 cases of intussusception were included in this study (123 cases of SBI and 60 of ileocolic intussusception). Ultrasonoscopy features that were significantly different between the two groups (p<0.05) included the lesion diameter, fat core thickness, outer wall thickness, lymph nodes inside intussusception, and lesion length. In the SBI group, 85% (104/123) of the normal ileocecal region was found in the right lower quadrant and 98% (120/123) of the normal ascending colon was found in the right side of the abdomen. In the ileocolic intussusception group, none of the normal ileocecal region was found and the ascending colon was found in only 5 cases (8%) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ultrasonography is the most practical method to distinguish SBI from ileocolic intussusception. In addition to comparing the differences between lesions, conventional probing of the ileocecal region and ascending colon will help to accurately differentiate between the types of intussusception and avoid misdiagnosis. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic.