Comparative safety and efficacy of balloon use in air enema reduction for pediatric intussusception

Abstract

Background

Intussusception, a common cause of bowel obstruction in young children, is primarily treated with air enema reduction. There is little literature comparing the safety and efficacy of air reduction without or with a rectal balloon.

Objective

To determine the safety and efficacy of a rectal balloon seal in air enema reduction.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of children who underwent air reduction for ileocolic or ileo-ileocolic intussusception over an 8-year period. We sorted data from 566 children according to whether a rectal balloon was used in the reduction, and further sorted them by type and experience level of the practitioner. Using logistic regression analyses, we identified risk factors for iatrogenic bowel perforation or failed reduction.

Results

Significant associations with bowel perforation included balloon use (P=0.038), age <1 year (P<0.0001), and attending physician’s level of experience <5 years (P=0.043). Younger age was associated with both perforation (P<0.0001) and procedural failure (P=0.001). The risk-adjusted predicted probability of perforation decreased with age, approaching zero by 10 months regardless of balloon use. For cases without bowel resection, the risk-adjusted predicted probability of failure decreased toward zero by 30 months with balloon use, while remaining constant at 3–12% regardless of age when not using a balloon.

Conclusion

The likelihood of a successful air reduction might be safely increased by using an inflated rectal balloon in children older than 9 months. Use of a balloon in younger infants is associated with a higher risk of iatrogenic bowel injury.