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

Abstract

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.

Developing a nomogram for predicting surgical intervention in pediatric intussusception after hydrostatic reduction

“…Both of the 2 non-surgery techniques can be performed safely and exhibits high success rates (6). Currently, ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction has been suggested as the first choice for intussusception treatment in several studies, because it has a higher success rate, shorter hospital stay and no radiation risk comparing to pneumatic reduction (6)(7)(8). When non-surgery treatment is contraindicated or has failed, surgery procedures will be conducted.…”

Ingestion of kinetic sand leading to intussusception and bowel obstruction in a child: a case report

“…Accepted treatment options of ileo-colonic intussusceptions are retrograde hydrostatic or pneumatic enema under fluoroscopic control. Studies have shown that both are adequate interventions for reduction ( 6 , 7 ). The advantage of hydrostatic enemas with contrast is the ability to both diagnose and visualize the reduction post-intervention.…”

Epidemiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of 586 cases of intussusception: a 4-year retrospective study in China

“…A randomized trial of pneumatic reduction vs. hydrostatic reduction for intussusception conducted in 2018 showed that the success rate of hydrostatic reduction with normal saline was significantly higher than that of pneumatic reduction with air ( 18 ). Additionally, a prospective study conducted in 2021 also showed that hydrostatic reduction was superior to pneumatic reduction ( 19 ).…”