Pediatric emergency care · 2020
Comparison Between Small and Large Bowel Intussusception in Children: The Experience of a Large Tertiary Care Pediatric Hospital.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Levinson Hila, Capua Tali, Scolnik Dennis, Rimon Ayelet, Salomon Lotan, Glatstein Miguel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intussusception is the most common cause of intestinal obstruction in young children, and delayed diagnosis may lead to serious sequelae. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of ileoileal intussusception and to document and compare clinical outcomes with ileocolic intussusception.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of children with an abdominal ultrasound that diagnosed intussusception. Clinical data and diagnostic studies were retrieved, to compare ileoileal with ileocolic intussusception.
RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated with an abdominal ultrasound on suspicion of intussusception; 54 (11%) had ileoileal intussusception and 30 (6%) ileocolic intussusception. The significant features distinguishing the 2 conditions were fever, more common in patients with ileoileal intussusception, and an abdominal mass, which was papable more commonly in ileocolic intussusception. None of the ileoileal intussusception patients required surgical intervention, and all were discharged without complication.
CONCLUSIONS: With recent advances in abdominal ultrasound, the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception has become easier than before. Patients presenting with small bowel intussusception may not need any immediate intervention. The presence of fever supports the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of children with an abdominal ultrasound that diagnosed intussusception. Clinical data and diagnostic studies were retrieved, to compare ileoileal with ileocolic intussusception.
RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were evaluated with an abdominal ultrasound on suspicion of intussusception; 54 (11%) had ileoileal intussusception and 30 (6%) ileocolic intussusception. The significant features distinguishing the 2 conditions were fever, more common in patients with ileoileal intussusception, and an abdominal mass, which was papable more commonly in ileocolic intussusception. None of the ileoileal intussusception patients required surgical intervention, and all were discharged without complication.
CONCLUSIONS: With recent advances in abdominal ultrasound, the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception has become easier than before. Patients presenting with small bowel intussusception may not need any immediate intervention. The presence of fever supports the diagnosis of ileoileal intussusception.