1996
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.201.2.8888227
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intussusception: trapped peritoneal fluid detected with US--relationship to reducibility and ischemia.

Abstract: Fluid seen inside the intussusception represented trapped peritoneal fluid. Substantial amounts of fluid were associated with irreducibility and ischemia.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
41
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 84 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…25,29 For example, del-Pozo et al 29 reported that entrapped fluid was present in 14% of their cases of intussusception and that, among those cases, the success rate for sonographically guided pneumatic reduction was only 26%. Britton and Wilkinson 25 reported the presence of entrapped fluid in 12% of their cases and a success rate of only 14% and concluded that this factor is a consistent indicator of poor outcome of pneumatic reduction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…25,29 For example, del-Pozo et al 29 reported that entrapped fluid was present in 14% of their cases of intussusception and that, among those cases, the success rate for sonographically guided pneumatic reduction was only 26%. Britton and Wilkinson 25 reported the presence of entrapped fluid in 12% of their cases and a success rate of only 14% and concluded that this factor is a consistent indicator of poor outcome of pneumatic reduction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our series, entrapped fluid was present in a similar proportion of cases (11%), but our rate of successful reduction was much higher (64%) than the rates in the previous series. 25,29 We assume that the ability of sonographically guided hydrostatic enema to allow constant realtime monitoring of the relationship between the intussusceptum and the intussuscipiens and to permit meticulous control of the enema fluid explain why this method was consistently effective and safe, even in cases in which initial diagnostic sonography revealed the presence of risk factors. Because of these advantages, we believe that sonographically guided hydrostatic enema is superior to other methods of reduction, especially in potentially difficult cases.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A correct execution of US examination also requires a careful search for abdominal fluid, as free peritoneal fluid or localized near interested bowels, also known as the ''trapped-fluid sign'', caused by trapped fluid between the serosal surfaces of intussuscepted loops [17]. As also reported by Literature, the identification of free endo-peritoneal fluid does not necessarily indicate the presence of complications such as peritonitis or perforations, while the occurence of fluid ''trapped'' between intussuscepted bowel segments, that can be observed in less than 15 % of cases, seems to correlate with a lower reduction rate [17,24] and has been described as a highly predictive sign of bowel necrosis [18]. In our study we found the presence of free endo-abdominal fluid in five patients, all of these submitted to surgery.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…We consider this appropriate because studies have shown that although the probability of reduction falls with longstanding intussusception, a successful reduction is still possible [23][24][25][26][27]. Research has also shown that although likelihood of success with free or trapped fluid is relatively low, success is still possible [28,29], and the vast majority (86%) of our respondents said they attempt reduction despite the presence of free fluid. Similarly, reduction is less likely but still possible if decreased blood flow is demonstrated by Doppler US [30], and 82% of our respondents perform the procedure despite decreased blood flow (similar to a previous study) [19].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%