Skip to main content
Log in

The post-reduction donut sign

  • Originals
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A donut-shaped intestinal structure in the lower right abdomen, observed during abdominal ultrasound investigation following nonoperative intussusception reduction, may create a diagnostic problem concerning differentiation from a residual or recurrent intussusception or underlying small bowel disease. In 30 cases of ileocolic intussusception an abdominal ultrasound examination was performed after reduction, the success of which was proven by radiological and clinical criteria. More than half of the examinations showed an aperistaltic “donut” in the ileocecal region which was similar to the target sign commonly seen in intussusception. Differentiation was possible according to the following two criteria: first, the diameter of the donut was smaller than that of the original target sign seen in these patients. Second, the donut consisted of a broad hypoechoic rim and an echogenic center, whereas the target was normally composed of multiple concentric rings. One third of the patients showed localized thickening of the walls of the distal ileal loops which did not cause diagnostic problems. All of the suspicious intestinal structures disappeared within the first 5 days following reduction. It is our opinion that the post-reduction donut correlates with significant edema of the ileocecal valve and does not represent a mechanical lead point or persisting residual intussusception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gu L, Alton DJ, Daneman A, Stringer DA, Liu P, Wilmot DM, Reilly BJ (1988) John Caffey Award. Intussusception reduction in children by rectal insufflation of air. AJR 150:1345–1348

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Guo JZ, Ma XY, Zhou QH (1986) Results of air pressure enema reduction of intussusception: 6,396 cases in 13 years. J Pediatr Surg 21:1201–1203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hedlund GL, Johnson JF, Strife JL (1990) Ileocolic intussusception: extensive reflux of air preceding pneumatic reduction. Radiology 174:187–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hofmann V, Bartsch H (1990) Wandel in Diagnostik und Therapie der Invagination. Zentralbl Chir 115:1249–1258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Phelan E, de Campo JF, Malecky G (1988) Comparison of oxygen and barium reduction of ileocolic intussusception. AJR 150: 1349–1352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shiels WE, Maves CK, Hedlund GL, Kirks DR (1991) Air enema for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception: clinical experience and pressure correlates. Radiolngy 181:169–172

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stringer DA, Ein SH (1990) Pheumatic reduction: advantages, risks and indications. Pediatr Radiol 20:475–477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Todani T, Sato Y, Watanabe Y, Toki A, Uemura S, Urushihara N (1990) Air reduction for intussusception in infancy and childhood: ultrasonographic diagnosis and management without X-ray exposure. Z Kinderchir 45:222–226

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang JZ, Wang YX, Wei LC (1986) Rectal inflation reduction of intussusception in infants. J Pediatr Surg 21:30–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Müller-Leisse C, Tröger J (1988) Invagination. Derzeitiger Stand der bildgebenden Diagnostik und Therapie. Radiologe 28:466–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pozniak MA, Scanlan KA, Yandow D, Mulligan G (1990) Current status of small-bowel ultrasound. Radiologe 30:254–265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stephenson CA, Seibert JJ, Strain JD, Glasier CM, Leithiser RE, Iqbal V (1990) Intussusception: clinical and radiographic factors influencing reducibility. Pediatr Radiol 20:57–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reijnen JAM, Festen C, van Roosmalen RP (1990) Intussusception: factors related to treatment. Arch Dis Child 65: 871–873

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Swischuk LE, Stansberry SD (1991) Ultrasonographic detection of free peritoneal fluid in uncomplicated intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 21:350–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Woo SK, Kim JS, Suh SJ, Paik TW, Choi SO (1992) Childhood intussusception: US-guided hydrostatic reduction. Radiology 182:77–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rohrschneider W, Tröger J, Betsch B (1994) Erste Erfahrungen mit einer neuen Methode zur Behandlung der Invagination: die sonographisch gesteuerte hydrostatische Reposition. Fortschr Röntgenstr 160:35–39

    Google Scholar 

  17. Devred P, Faure F, Padovani J (1984) Pseudotumoral cecum after hydrostatic reduction of intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 14:295–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ein SH, Shandling B, Reilly BJ, Strigger DA (1986) Hydrostatic reduction of intussusceptions caused by lead points. J Pediatr Surg 21:883–886

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eklöf OA, Hugosson C (1976) Post evacuation findings in barium enema treated intussusceptions. Ann Radiol (Paris) 19:133

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bisset GS, Kirks DR (1988) Intussusception in infants and children: diagnosis and therapy. Radiology 168:141–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rohrschneider, W., Tröger, J. & Betsch, B. The post-reduction donut sign. Pediatr Radiol 24, 156–160 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02012175

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02012175

Keywords

Navigation