Literature DB >> 8327705

Air and liquid contrast agents in the management of intussusception: a controlled, randomized trial.

J S Meyer1, B C Dangman, C Buonomo, J A Berlin.   

Abstract

A randomized study comparing air and liquid contrast agents for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception involved 101 patients. Fifty received liquid contrast material and 51 received air. Rates of diagnosis were 49% (25 of 51) for air and 54% (27 of 50) for liquid contrast material (P = .62). Rates of reduction were 76% (19 of 25) for air and 63% (17 of 27) for liquid contrast material (P = .31). Air enemas resulted in shorter fluoroscopic times in patients without an intussusception and for examinations by radiologists who had performed four or more air enemas. Air enemas were found to be accurate in demonstration of intussusception and at least as effective as liquid contrast medium for reduction of intussusception. In experienced hands, the shorter fluoroscopic time with resultant lower radiation exposure associated with air is an important benefit. There still may be clinical situations, however, in which a liquid contrast agent is preferred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8327705     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.188.2.8327705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  18 in total

Review 1.  Intussusception in children: evidence-based diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  Kimberly E Applegate
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2009-04

2.  Therapeutic enema for pediatric ileocolic intussusception: using a balloon catheter improves efficacy.

Authors:  Bradford W Betz; Jeffrey E Hagedorn; Jeffrey S Guikema; Courtney L Barnes
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2013-06-09

3.  Pediatric radiology fellows' experience with intussusception reduction.

Authors:  Rebecca Stein-Wexler; Cyrus Bateni; Sandra L Wootton-Gorges; Chin-Shang Li
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-05-13

4.  Current methods for reducing intussusception: survey results.

Authors:  Rebecca Stein-Wexler; Rachel O'Connor; Heike Daldrup-Link; Sandra L Wootton-Gorges
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2014-11-29

Review 5.  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

6.  Intussusception reduction: Effect of air vs. liquid enema on radiation dose.

Authors:  Summer L Kaplan; Dennise Magill; Marc A Felice; J Christopher Edgar; Sudha A Anupindi; Xiaowei Zhu
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-06-03

7.  Hydrostatic reduction of intussusception under US guidance.

Authors:  W K Rohrschneider; J Tröger
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1995

Review 8.  Management for intussusception in children.

Authors:  Steven Gluckman; Jonathan Karpelowsky; Angela C Webster; Richard G McGee
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-01

9.  An interactive teaching device simulating intussusception reduction.

Authors:  Rebecca Stein-Wexler; Thomas Sanchez; Glade E Roper; Anthony S Wexler; Robert P Arieli; Clark Ho; Joseph C Li; Alp Ozpinar; Steffan K Soosman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2010-07-21

Review 10.  Intussusception. Part 2: An update on the evolution of management.

Authors:  Alan Daneman; Oscar Navarro
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2003-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.