Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 454–456 | Cite as

Significance of age, duration, obstruction and the dissection sign in intussusception

  • L. L. Barr
  • S. D. Stansberry
  • L. E. Swischuk
Originals

Abstract

A retrospective study of sixty consecutive cases of proven intussusception with attempt at contrast enema reduction was performed to evaluate currently proposed contraindications to such reduction. When patient age, duration of symptoms, presence of small bowel obstruction and presence of a dissection sign were considered alone, none of the findings indicated irreducibility. Our overall reduction rate was 72% with a complication rate of 3%. This is similar to previously reported series and we concur with more recent publications that the only contraindications to non-surgical reduction of intussusception are free intraperitoneal air, peritonitis or evidence of infarcted bowel. Only when we encountered a combination of symptoms being present for greater than 48 hours and the presence of both small bowel obstruction and a dissection sign was reduction likely to be unsuccessful. However, the presence of a prognostic indicator occurring alone should not be considered a contraindication.

Keywords

Public Health Retrospective Study Small Bowel Complication Rate Peritonitis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leonidas JC (1985) Treatment of intussusception with small bowel obstruction: application of decision analysis. AJR 145:665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gierup, J, Jourulf H, Livaditis A (1972) Management of intussusception in infants and children: a survey based on 288 consecutive cases. Pediatrics 50:535PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eklof OA, Johanson L, Lohr G (1980) Childhood intussusception: Hydrostatic reducibility and incidence of leading points in different age groups. Pediatr Radiol 10:83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fishman MC, Borden S, Cooper A (1984) The dissection sign of nonreducible ileocolic intussusception. AJR 143:5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Humphrey A, Ein SH, Mok PM (1981) Perforation of the intussuscepted colon. AJR 137:1135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenkrantz JC, Cox JA, Silvermann FN, Martin LW (1977) Intussusception in the 1970's: indications for operation. J Pediatr Surg 12:367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ein SH, Mercer S, Humphrey A, Macdonald P (1981) Colon perforation during attempted barium enema reduction of intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 16:313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ein SH (1976) Leading points in childhood intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 11:209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cochran DQ, Almond CH, Shucart WA (1963) An experimental study of the effects of barium and intestinal contents in the peritoneal cavity. AJR 89:883Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bisset GS III, Kirks DR (1988) Intussusception in infants and children: diagnosis and therapy. Radiology 168:141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ginai AZ (1985) Experimental evaluation of various available contrast agents for use in the gastrointestinal tract in case of suspected leakage: effects on peritoneum. Br J Radiol 58:969PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu L, Alton DJ, Daneman A, Stringer DA, Liu P, Wilmot DM, Reilly BJ (1988) Intussusception reduction in children by reactal insufflation of air. AJR 150:1345PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo J, Ma X, Zhou Q (1986) Results of air pressure enema reduction of intussusception: 6,396 cases in 13 years. J Pediatr Surg 21:1201PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. L. Barr
    • 1
  • S. D. Stansberry
    • 2
  • L. E. Swischuk
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyChildren's Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations