Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec 8;41(1):23.
doi: 10.1007/s00383-024-05919-2.

Hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: the impact of high enema pressure on success rates

Bingjie Wang  1 , Ziwei Jian  1 , Weicheng Huang  1 , Beilei Huang  2 , Fengguang Ye  1 , Jinrong Chen  1 , Wenyou Chen  3
Affiliations

Hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: the impact of high enema pressure on success rates

Bingjie Wang et al. Pediatr Surg Int. .

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of increasing enema pressure on enema outcomes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to compare the effect of increasing enema pressure on enema outcomes. The primary outcome was the success rate of reduction, while secondary outcomes included intestinal perforation and recurrence rate.

Results: From May 2017 to April 2021, a total of 531 intussusceptions in 499 patients (Group A 247 patients, Group B 252 patients) were collected. The overall success reduction rate was 97.00%. The success reduction rate in Group A was 99.20% (245/247) and 94.8% (239/252) in Group B (P = 0.004). The overall recurrence rate within 48 h after the initial enema reduction was 8.02%, and beyond 48 h was 6.41%. The recurrence rates within 48 h and beyond 48 h were 9.39% and 6.53% in group A and 7.11% and 6.69% in group B, respectively (P = 0.526). No complications were associated with the enema reduction procedure.

Conclusion: Our study has shown that using a hydrostatic pressure of 130 mmHg for enema reduction is both effective and safe, with a higher success rate and no increased risk of complications.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic study, III.

Keywords: Hydrostatic Reduction Pressure; Intussusception; Reduction Rate; Ultrasound-Guided.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: For this type of study formal consent is not required. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

    1. Guo JZ, Ma XY, Zhou QH (1986) Results of air pressure enema reduction of intussusception: 6,396 cases in 13 years. J Pediatr Surg 21(12):1201–1203. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(86)90040-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tang XB, Zhao JY, Bai YZ (2019) Status survey on enema reduction of paediatric intussusception in china. J Int Med Res 47(2):859–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060518814120 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stein-Wexler R, O’connor R, Daldrup-Link H, Wootton-Gorges SL (2015) Current methods for reducing intussusception: survey results. Pediatr Radiol 45(5):667–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3214-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hannon E, Williams R, Allan R, Okoye B (2014) Uk intussusception audit: A national survey of practice and audit of reduction rates. Clin Radiol 69(4):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.10.024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sadigh G, Zou KH, Razavi SA, Khan R, Applegate KE (2015) Meta-analysis of air versus liquid enema for intussusception reduction in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(5):W542-549. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.14060 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources