Cargando…

Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND: Intussusception is the most common abdominal emergency in children. The first line treatment of uncomplicated pediatric intussusception is enema reduction. Until now, there have been no multi-center studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of UGHR and FGAR in the treatment of pedia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Shu Ting, Tang, Xiao Bing, Li, Huan, Chen, Dong, Lei, Jun, Bai, Yu Zuo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33436001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-020-00346-9
_version_ 1783636241145659392
author Liu, Shu Ting
Tang, Xiao Bing
Li, Huan
Chen, Dong
Lei, Jun
Bai, Yu Zuo
author_facet Liu, Shu Ting
Tang, Xiao Bing
Li, Huan
Chen, Dong
Lei, Jun
Bai, Yu Zuo
author_sort Liu, Shu Ting
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intussusception is the most common abdominal emergency in children. The first line treatment of uncomplicated pediatric intussusception is enema reduction. Until now, there have been no multi-center studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of UGHR and FGAR in the treatment of pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two most commonly used enema methods of pediatric intussusception: ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (UGHR) and fluoroscopy-guided air reduction (FGAR). METHODS: From November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, we conducted a multi-center, prospective, cohort study. Children diagnosed with intussusception in four large Children’s Medical Centers in China were divided into UGHR and FGAR groups. Stratified analysis and subgroup analysis were used for further comparison. The success and recurrence rates were used to evaluate the effectiveness of enema reduction. The perforation rate was used to evaluate the safety of enema reduction. RESULTS: A total of 2124 cases met the inclusion criteria (UGHR group: 1119 cases; FGAR group: 1005 cases). The success and recurrence rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group (95.80%, 9.28% vs. 93.13%, 10.65%) (P < 0.05, P > 0.05), respectively. The perforation rate in the UGHR group was 0.36% compared with 0.30% in the FGAR group (P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group of patients with onset time between 12 and 24 h (95.56% vs. 90.57%) (P < 0.05). Of patients aged 4 to 24 months, the success rates in the UGHR group were also higher than in the FGAR group (95.77% vs. 91.60%) (P < 0.05). Stratified analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group in patients with the symptom of bloody stool (91.91% vs 85.38%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: UGHR and FGAR are safe, nonsurgical treatment methods for acute pediatric intussusception. UGHR is superior to FGAR, no radiation risk, its success rate is higher, without a difference in perforation rate, especially for patients aged 4–24 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7805056
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78050562021-01-14 Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study Liu, Shu Ting Tang, Xiao Bing Li, Huan Chen, Dong Lei, Jun Bai, Yu Zuo World J Emerg Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Intussusception is the most common abdominal emergency in children. The first line treatment of uncomplicated pediatric intussusception is enema reduction. Until now, there have been no multi-center studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of UGHR and FGAR in the treatment of pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two most commonly used enema methods of pediatric intussusception: ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (UGHR) and fluoroscopy-guided air reduction (FGAR). METHODS: From November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, we conducted a multi-center, prospective, cohort study. Children diagnosed with intussusception in four large Children’s Medical Centers in China were divided into UGHR and FGAR groups. Stratified analysis and subgroup analysis were used for further comparison. The success and recurrence rates were used to evaluate the effectiveness of enema reduction. The perforation rate was used to evaluate the safety of enema reduction. RESULTS: A total of 2124 cases met the inclusion criteria (UGHR group: 1119 cases; FGAR group: 1005 cases). The success and recurrence rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group (95.80%, 9.28% vs. 93.13%, 10.65%) (P < 0.05, P > 0.05), respectively. The perforation rate in the UGHR group was 0.36% compared with 0.30% in the FGAR group (P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group of patients with onset time between 12 and 24 h (95.56% vs. 90.57%) (P < 0.05). Of patients aged 4 to 24 months, the success rates in the UGHR group were also higher than in the FGAR group (95.77% vs. 91.60%) (P < 0.05). Stratified analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group in patients with the symptom of bloody stool (91.91% vs 85.38%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: UGHR and FGAR are safe, nonsurgical treatment methods for acute pediatric intussusception. UGHR is superior to FGAR, no radiation risk, its success rate is higher, without a difference in perforation rate, especially for patients aged 4–24 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II. BioMed Central 2021-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7805056/ /pubmed/33436001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-020-00346-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Liu, Shu Ting
Tang, Xiao Bing
Li, Huan
Chen, Dong
Lei, Jun
Bai, Yu Zuo
Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title_full Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title_fullStr Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title_short Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
title_sort ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33436001
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13017-020-00346-9
work_keys_str_mv AT liushuting ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy
AT tangxiaobing ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy
AT lihuan ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy
AT chendong ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy
AT leijun ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy
AT baiyuzuo ultrasoundguidedhydrostaticreductionversusfluoroscopyguidedairreductionforpediatricintussusceptionamulticenterprospectivecohortstudy