Reduction of intussusception with saline enema superior to air enema
Timestops (7)
Tools Used
Topic Overview
Key Takeaways
- Ultrasound-guided saline enema achieved 96.8% reduction success vs 83.9% for air enema in pediatric intussusception (p<0.05, n=124).
- Hydrostatic reduction had shorter procedure time than pneumatic reduction with equivalent safety profile.
- Saline enema under ultrasound eliminates fluoroscopy radiation exposure while improving reduction success rates.
- Post-procedure ultrasound confirmation of reduction is feasible and may replace fluoroscopic verification.
- Hydrostatic technique may represent paradigm shift from current US standard of pneumatic reduction under fluoroscopy.
Keywords
Hashtags
Transcript
This is Todd Ponsky and here's your two minute review. It's a new year, so we have new surgical fellows. We now have Dr. Alex Gibbons working here at Akron Children's and he's going to do our first year's JPS review. Thanks, Alex. Sure thing. Right. So the article that I'm going to be reviewing today is entitled A Randomized Trial of Pneumatic Reduction versus Hydrostatic Reduction for Intussusception in Pediatric Patients. This was a really cool study that came out of West China Hospital of Sichuan University. First author was Dr. Xiaolong Xia, and the senior author was Dr. Bo Xiong. Now the authors wanted to look at a question about which type of reduction of intussusception was more effective: Air Contrast Enema or Hydrostatic Enema done under ultrasound guidance. So they randomized a total of 124 patients to either of those two groups in order to answer that question. The baseline characteristics for the patients were all the same with the exception of a shorter procedure time in the hydrostatic group. The primary outcome that they were looking at was success of non-operative management, which they were able to confirm with post-procedure ultrasound. They found that in the hydrostatic group, 96.77% of patients were able to have the intussusception successfully reduced compared to 83.87% of the Air Contrast Enema group. Alex, thanks for that review. This is actually, to me it seems like a potential game-changing paper. Uh just to make sure I got this right. We started off doing barium enemas under fluoroscopy. Then we have moved recently to pneumatic reduction under fluoroscopy. The idea here is using saline enemas under ultrasound. So no fluoroscopy. And actually under everything they measured, this was better than the traditional air enemas under fluoroscopy. Is that right? Exactly. So I I think this is something for us to pay attention to. We have to think about is this something that we want to trial in the United States, but it's certainly a very intriguing article. Thanks for the review. Sure thing.