Skip to main content
Log in

Intussusception: the debate endures

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

References

  1. Daneman A, Navarro O (2004) Intussusception part 2: an update on the evolution of management. Pediatr Radiol 34:97–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beasley S (2004) Intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 34:302–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meyer JS (1992) The current radiologic management of intussusception: a survey and review. Pediatr Radiol 22:323–325

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmit P, Rohrschneider WK, Christmann D (1999) Intestinal intussusception survey about diagnostic and nonsurgical therapeutic procedures. Pediatr Radiol 29:751–761

    Google Scholar 

  5. Heenan SD, Kyriou J, Fitzgerald M, et al (2000) Effective dose at pneumatic reduction of paediatric intussusception. Clin Radiol 55:811–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan Daneman.

Additional information

This reply refers to the Letter to the Editor at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1330-5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Daneman, A., Navarro, O. Intussusception: the debate endures. Pediatr Radiol 35, 95–96 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1364-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-004-1364-8

Keywords

Navigation