Journal of pediatric surgery · 2010
Failure of enema reduction for ileocolic intussusception at a referring hospital does not preclude repeat attempts at a children's hospital.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curtis Jennifer L, Gutierrez Ivan M, Kirk Shannon R, Gollin Gerald
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Some children with intussusception undergo attempted enema reduction at a hospital without pediatric radiology expertise and are transferred to a children's hospital (CH) if this is unsuccessful. We sought to determine whether a failed reduction (FR) at a referring hospital predicted failure of repeated attempts by a pediatric radiologist at a CH.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all children with ileocolic intussusception admitted to a large CH over 9 years was performed. Differences in outcome between those who initially presented to the CH and those who had a FR elsewhere before transfer (FR --> CH) were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 152 subjects were identified. There was no difference in the frequency of successful enema reduction at the CH for those who initially presented at the CH (60.5%) and those who were transferred after a FR elsewhere (60.7%). The only predictor of successful reduction was anatomy, whereby 64% of intussusceptions proximal to the splenic flexure were reduced, but only 35% of those distal to that point (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who are transferred to a CH after failed enema reduction elsewhere should undergo a repeat hydrostatic or pneumatic enema reduction in the absence of other contraindications.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all children with ileocolic intussusception admitted to a large CH over 9 years was performed. Differences in outcome between those who initially presented to the CH and those who had a FR elsewhere before transfer (FR --> CH) were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 152 subjects were identified. There was no difference in the frequency of successful enema reduction at the CH for those who initially presented at the CH (60.5%) and those who were transferred after a FR elsewhere (60.7%). The only predictor of successful reduction was anatomy, whereby 64% of intussusceptions proximal to the splenic flexure were reduced, but only 35% of those distal to that point (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who are transferred to a CH after failed enema reduction elsewhere should undergo a repeat hydrostatic or pneumatic enema reduction in the absence of other contraindications.