Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 92–94 | Cite as

Intussusception: still work in progress

  • Gloria del PozoEmail author
Letter to the Editor

Sir,

Daneman and Navarro [1] have recently published a series of interesting papers on intussusception in which they discuss this controversial topic and provide a comprehensive review of the literature that updates previous ones [2, 3]. Beasley’s editorial [4] underlines the importance of making an early and accurate diagnosis at the time of presentation (usually by US or enema). He also analyses the evolution of intussusception management and states that “the change from the hydrostatic to the pneumatic reduction techniques by pediatric radiologists ... have not always been repeated in non-specialist pediatric centres”. He seems to recommend that changing from barium enema to air enema under fluoroscopic control would be desirable. We notice that he does not mention hydrostatic or air reduction guided by US.

We agree with Beasley that “we have not yet heard the last word on intussusception”, “our goal must be to find the perfect method for enema reduction“, and “our responsibility to...

Keywords

Intussusception Lead Point Rectal Balloon Unnecessary Radiation Ileocaecal Valve 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Daneman A, Navarro O (2004) Intussusception. 2. An update on the evolution of management. Pediatr Radiol 34:97–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daneman A, Alton DJ (1996) Intussusception. Issues and controversies related to diagnosis and reduction. Radiol Clin North Am 34:743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Del Pozo G, Albillos JC, Tejedor D, et al (1999) Intussusception in children: current concepts in diagnosis and enema reduction. Radiographics 19:299–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beasley S (2004) Intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 34:302–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henrikson S, Blane CE, Koujok K, et al (2003) The effect of screening sonography on the positive rate of enemas for intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 33:190–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zambuto D, Bramson RT, Blickman JG (1995) Intracolonic pressure measurements during hydrostatic and air contrast barium enema studies in children. Radiology 196:55–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riebel TW, Nasir R, Weber K (1993) US-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception in children. Radiology 188:513–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Del Pozo G, Gonzalez-Spinola J, Gomez-Anson B, et al (1996) Intussusception: trapped peritoneal fluid detected with US—relationship to reducibility and ischemia. Radiology 201:379–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Del Pozo G, Albillos JC, Tejedor D (1996) Intussusception: US findings with pathologic correlation—the crescent-in-doughnut sign. Radiology 199:688–698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez-Spinola J, Del Pozo G, Tejedor D, et al (1999) Intussusception: the accuracy of ultrasound-guided saline enema and the usefulness of a delayed attempt at reduction. J Pediatr Surg 34:1016–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiologìa InfantilHospital Universitario 12 de OctubreMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations