Publication:
Enema reduction of intussusception: The success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction

dc.contributor.authorJiraporn Khoranaen_US
dc.contributor.authorJesda Singhavejsakulen_US
dc.contributor.authorNuthapong Ukarapolen_US
dc.contributor.authorMongkol Laohapensangen_US
dc.contributor.authorJunsujee Wakhanritteeen_US
dc.contributor.authorJayanton Patumanonden_US
dc.contributor.otherChiang Mai Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherThammasat University Hospitalen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T09:53:40Z
dc.date.available2018-11-23T09:53:40Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-15en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2015 Khorana et al. Purpose: Intussusception is a common surgical emergency in infants and children. The incidence of intussusception is from one to four per 2,000 infants and children. If there is no peritonitis, perforation sign on abdominal radiographic studies, and nonresponsive shock, nonoperative reduction by pneumatic or hydrostatic enema can be performed. The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates of both the methods. Methods: Two institutional retrospective cohort studies were performed. All intussusception patients (ICD-10 code K56.1) who had visited Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital from January 2006 to December 2012 were included in the study. The data were obtained by chart reviews and electronic databases, which included demographic data, symptoms, signs, and investigations. The patients were grouped according to the method of reduction followed into pneumatic reduction and hydrostatic reduction groups with the outcome being the success of the reduction technique. Results: One hundred and seventy episodes of intussusception occurring in the patients of Chiang Mai University Hospital and Siriraj Hospital were included in this study. The success rate of pneumatic reduction was 61% and that of hydrostatic reduction was 44% (P=0.036). Multivariable analysis and adjusting of the factors by propensity scores were performed; the success rate of pneumatic reduction was 1.48 times more than that of hydrostatic reduction (P=0.036, 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.03–2.13). Conclusion: Both pneumatic and hydrostatic reduction can be performed safely according to the experience of the radiologist or pediatric surgeon and hospital setting. This study showed that pneumatic reduction had a higher success rate than hydrostatic reduction.en_US
dc.identifier.citationTherapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. Vol.11, (2015), 1837-1842en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2147/TCRM.S92169en_US
dc.identifier.issn1178203Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn11766336en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84952793066en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/35690
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84952793066&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectChemical Engineeringen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleEnema reduction of intussusception: The success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reductionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84952793066&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections