SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3

A review of intussusception cases involving failed pneumatic reduction and re-intussusception

RAHŞAN ÖZCAN
Mirzaman HÜSEYNOV
Çiğdem TÜTÜNCÜ
Hayriye Ertem VEHİD
Sergülen DERVİŞOĞLU
İBRAHİM ADALETLİ
RECEP SİNAN CELAYİR
GONCA AYŞE TEKANT
Pages
259–264
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the event of failure, a lead point is usually encountered at laparotomy

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate cases in which intussusception was unsuccessfully treated with pneumatic reduction (PR), and intussusception recurred following PR.METHODS: The medical records of 401 patients who presented with intussusception between 2003 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Included were 61 patients, 20 of whom underwent unsuccessful PR (Group 1), and 41 of whom experienced intussusception recurrence following PR (Group 2).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the event of failure, a lead point is usually encountered at laparotomy
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate cases in which intussusception was unsuccessfully treated with pneumatic reduction (PR), and intussusception recurred following PR.METHODS: The medical records of 401 patients who presented with intussusception between 2003 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Included were 61 patients, 20 of whom underwent unsuccessful PR (Group 1), and 41 of whom experienced intussusception recurrence following PR (Group 2). Treatment and outcome were summarized.RESULTS: In Group 1 (mean age: 14.2 months; range: 2.5 months–6 years) surgery was indicated due to PR failure in 15 patients, and perforation occurred during PR in 5. In these 5 patients, age was under 1 year (range 6–9 months) and mean time to presentation was 3 days (range 2–4). During laparotomy, pathologies were noted: mesenteric lymphadenopathy (LAP) and/or Peyer’s patch hyperplasia was observed in 15 cases, Meckel’s diverticulum in 5 cases. In Group 2 (mean age: 20 months; range: 3 months–6 years), intussusception developed after successful PR in 41 patients, most frequently within the first 24 hours (21.51%). Of the 41 patients, recurrent intussusception (RI) was treated with PR in 36, and laparotomy in 5. Operative findings were mesenteric LAP in 4 and polyp in 1.CONCLUSION: PR is effective for the treatment of intussusception and recurrences. Delayed presentation reduces the success rate. In the event of failure, a lead point is usually encountered at laparotomy

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, R., HÜSEYNOV, M., TÜTÜNCÜ, Ç., VEHİD, H. E., DERVİŞOĞLU, S., ADALETLİ, İ., CELAYİR, R. S., TEKANT, G. A. (2016). A review of intussusception cases involving failed pneumatic reduction and re-intussusception. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3, 259–264. https://ajindex.com/articles/323776

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Fallon SC, Lopez ME, Zhang W, Brandt ML, Wesson DE, Lee TC, et al. Risk factors for sur-gery in pediatric intussusception in the era of pneumatic reduction. J Pediatr Surg 2013;48:1032–6
  2. Beres AL, Baird R. An institutional analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of pneumatic versus hydrostatic reduction for pediatric intussusception. Surgery 2013;154:328–34
  3. Tareen F, Ryan S, Avanzini S, Pena V, Mc Laughlin D, Puri P. Does the length of the history influence the outcome of pneumatic reduction of intussusception in children? Pediatr Surg Int. 2011;27:587–9
  4. Sonmez K, Turkyilmaz Z, Demirogullari B, Karabulut R, Kale N, Basaklar AC. Intussuscep-tion in children: experience with 105 patients in a department of paediatric surgery, Turkey. S Afr J Surg 2012;50:37–9
  5. Mensah YB, Glover-Addy H, Etwire V, Twum MB, Asiamah S, Appeadu-Mensah W, et al. Pneumatic reduction of intussusception in children at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital: an initial ex-perience. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2011;8:176–81
  6. Eliçevik M, Özcan R, Emre Ş, İlçe Z, Tekant GT, Sarımurat N, et al. A rapid review of a very well known: Intussusception. Cerrahpasa J Med 2006;37:41–4
  7. Niramis R, Watanatittan S, Kruatrachue A, Anuntkosol M, Buranakitjaroen V, Rattanasuwan T, et al. Management of recurrent intussusception: nonoperative or operative reduction? J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:2175–80
  8. Ryan ML, Fields JM, Sola JE, Neville HL. Portal venous gas and cardiopulmonary arrest dur-ing pneumatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusUlus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, May 2016, Vol. 22, No. 3 263 9. Fallon SC, Kim ES, Naik-Mathuria BJ, Nuchtern JG, Cassady CI, Rodriguez JR. Needle de-compression to avoid tension pneumoperitoneum and hemodynamic compromise after pneumat-ic reduction of pediatric intussusception. Pediatr Radiol 2013;43:662–7
  9. Fike FB, Mortellaro VE, Holcomb GW 3rd, St Peter SD. Predictors of failed enema reduc-tion in childhood intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 2012;47:925–7
  10. Curtis JL, Gutierrez IM, Kirk SR, Gollin G. Failure of enema reduction for ileocolic intus-susception at a referring hospital does not preclude repeat attempts at a children’s hospital. J Pe-diatr Surg 2010;45(6):1178–81
  11. Gartner RD, Levin TL, Borenstein SH, Han BK, Blumfield E, Murphy R, et al. Interloop fluid in intussusception: what is its significance? Pediatr Radiol 2011;41:727–31
  12. Cullmann JL, Heverhagen JT, Puig S. Radiation dose in pneumatic reduction of ileo-colic intussusceptions--r