Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Air contrast enema reduction of single and recurrent ileocolic intussusceptions in children: patterns, management and outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus as to when surgical intervention should be considered for recurrent ileocolic intussusceptions in a stable patient after previous successful air contrast enema.

Objective

To review the patterns of ileocolic intussusceptions, air contrast enema success rates, and pathologic lead point rates in patients with and without recurrence to evaluate whether treatment outcomes depend on the number and timing between episodes.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 683 children with air contrast enema performed for ileocolic intussusception between January 2000 and May 2018. Recurrent intussusceptions were separated into mutually exclusive categories: short-term only (≤7 days between episodes) and long-term (>7 days between episodes) intussusceptions. Long-term recurrences included both long-term only and long- and short-term intussusceptions.

Results

Of the 683 patients, 606 (89%) had at least 1 successful air contrast enema. Of the 606, 115 (19%) had recurrent intussusceptions after successful reduction. The air contrast enema success rate for a single intussusception was 86% (491/568) and for recurrent intussusceptions was 96% (110/115) (P=0.004). Single and recurrent intussusceptions had similar pathologic lead point rates (3.5% vs. 4.3%; P=0.593). Short-term and long-term recurrences did not differ in air contrast enema success rates (96% vs. 95%). Long-term recurrences had higher pathologic lead point rate compared to short-term only (13% vs. 0%; P=0.003). Of short-term recurrences, 99% (76/77) were ≤5 intussusceptions; 92% had successful air contrast enema without surgery.

Conclusion

The majority of recurrent intussusceptions were successfully treated by air contrast enema. Short-term recurrences have lower pathologic lead point rates, suggesting that a higher surgical threshold may be plausible relative to long-term recurrences. In the appropriate clinical context, repeat air contrast enemas are a safe option for short-term recurrences, which can be attempted at least five times, potentially precluding the need for surgical intervention.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buettcher M, Baer G, Bonhoeffer J et al (2007) Three-year surveillance of intussusception in children in Switzerland. Pediatrics 120:473–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. del-Pozo G, Albillos JC, Tejedor D et al (1999) Intussusception in children: current concepts in diagnosis and enema reduction. Radiographics 19:299–319

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Daneman A, Alton DJ, Lobo E et al (1998) Patterns of recurrence of intussusception in children: a 17-year review. Pediatr Radiol 28:913–919

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lessenich EM, Kimia AA, Mandeville K et al (2015) The frequency of postreduction interventions after successful enema reduction of intussusception. Acad Emerg Med 22:1042–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen MD (2002) From air to barium and back to air reduction of intussusception in children. Pediatr Radiol 32:74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beres AL, Baird R (2013) An institutional analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of pneumatic versus hydrostatic reduction for pediatric intussusception. Surgery 154:328–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaplan SL, Magill D, Felice MA et al (2017) Intussusception reduction: effect of air vs. liquid enema on radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 47:1471–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hadidi AT, El Shal N (1999) Childhood intussusception: a comparative study of nonsurgical management. J Pediatr Surg 34:304–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hsu WL, Lee HC, Yeung CY et al (2012) Recurrent intussusception: when should surgical intervention be performed? Pediatr Neonatol 53:300–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gray MP, Li SH, Hoffmann RG, Gorelick MH (2014) Recurrence rates after intussusception enema reduction: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 134:110–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Champoux AN, Del Beccaro MA, Nazar-Stewart V (1994) Recurrent intussusception. Risks and features. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 148:474–478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Benson CD, Lloyd JR, Fischer H (1963) Intussusception in infants and children. An analysis of 300 cases. Arch Surg 86:745–751

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sadigh G, Zou KH, Razavi SA et al (2015) Meta-analysis of air versus liquid enema for intussusception reduction in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W542–W549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schuh S, Wesson DE (1987) Intussusception in children 2 years of age or older. CMAJ 136:269–272

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Niramis R, Watanatittan S, Kruatrachue A et al (2010) Management of recurrent intussusception: nonoperative or operative reduction? J Pediatr Surg 45:2175–2180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ong NT, Beasley SW (1990) The leadpoint in intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 25:640–643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guo WL, Hu ZC, Tan YL et al (2017) Risk factors for recurrent intussusception in children: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 7:e018604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim JH, Lee JS, Ryu JM et al (2018) Risk factors for recurrent intussusception after fluoroscopy-guided air enema. Pediatr Emerg Care 34:484–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller SF, Landes AB, Dautenhahn LW et al (1995) Intussusception: ability of fluoroscopic images obtained during air enemas to depict lead points and other abnormalities. Radiology 197:493–496

  20. Binkovitz LA, Kolbe AB, Orth RC et al (2019) Pediatric ileocolic intussusception: new observations and unexpected implications. Pediatr Radiol 49:76–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Khong PL, Peh WC, Lam CH et al (2000) Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of childhood intussusception: technique and demonstration. Radiographics 20:E1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Digant SM, Rucha S, Eke D (2012) Ultrasound guided reduction of an ileocolic intussusception by a hydrostatic method by using normal saline enema in paediatric patients: a study of 30 cases. J Clin Diagn Res 6:1722–1725

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mensah Y, Glover-Addy H, Etwire V et al (2011) Ultrasound guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception in children at Korle Bu teaching hospital: an initial experience. Ghana Med J 45:128–131

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Khanna G, Applegate K (2008) Ultrasound guided intussusception reduction: are we there yet? Abdom Imaging 33:38–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grace Mang Yuet Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, G.M.Y., Lillehei, C. & Callahan, M.J. Air contrast enema reduction of single and recurrent ileocolic intussusceptions in children: patterns, management and outcomes. Pediatr Radiol 50, 664–672 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04612-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-020-04612-5

Keywords

Navigation