The Journal of surgical research · 2013
Clinical outcomes following bowel resection versus reduction of intussusception.
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.
Sharp Nicole E, Knott E Marty, Iqbal Corey W, Thomas Priscilla, St Peter Shawn D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intussusception is most commonly managed with air-contrast reduction. However, when this fails, emergent operation with resection or manual reduction is indicated. It is not known if there are advantages to resection compared with manual reduction.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients receiving operative care for intussusception from February 2000 to December 2011. Patients undergoing intestinal resection were compared with those treated with manual reduction alone.
RESULTS: Of 111 patients, 49 underwent resection and 62 underwent manual reduction. Mean (±SD) time to oral intake favored manual reduction (2.1 ± 1.2 versus 2.6 ± 1.2 d, respectively, P=0.05). Manual reduction was associated with a greater need for repeat imaging (47% versus 18%, P=0.002) and the only recurrences were with manual reduction (8% versus 0%, P=0.1). Mean duration of stay was no different (P=0.36), nor was the need for reoperation (P=0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing manual reduction have an increased number of radiographic imaging procedures. The surgeon should have a low threshold for resection for intussusceptions requiring operative management.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients receiving operative care for intussusception from February 2000 to December 2011. Patients undergoing intestinal resection were compared with those treated with manual reduction alone.
RESULTS: Of 111 patients, 49 underwent resection and 62 underwent manual reduction. Mean (±SD) time to oral intake favored manual reduction (2.1 ± 1.2 versus 2.6 ± 1.2 d, respectively, P=0.05). Manual reduction was associated with a greater need for repeat imaging (47% versus 18%, P=0.002) and the only recurrences were with manual reduction (8% versus 0%, P=0.1). Mean duration of stay was no different (P=0.36), nor was the need for reoperation (P=0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing manual reduction have an increased number of radiographic imaging procedures. The surgeon should have a low threshold for resection for intussusceptions requiring operative management.