Why do we use a limit of 120 mmHg for pneumatic intussusception reduction?
- PMID: 40590950
- DOI: 10.1007/s00247-025-06319-x
Why do we use a limit of 120 mmHg for pneumatic intussusception reduction?
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
References
-
- Shiels WE, Kirks DR, Keller GL, Ryckman FR, Daugherty CC, Specker BL, Summa DW (1993) John Caffey award colonic perforation by air and liquid enemas: comparison study in young pigs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:931–935. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.160.5.8470606 - DOI
-
- American College of Radiology (ACR) (2023) ACR-SPR practice parameter for the performance of pediatric fluoroscopic contrast enema examinations. ACR website. https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=181
-
- Stein-Wexler R, O’Connor R, Daldrup-Link H, Wootton-Gorges SL (2015) Current methods for reducing intussusception: survey results. Pediatr Radiol 45:667–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3214-7 - DOI
-
- Ravitch MM, McCune RMJ (1948) Reduction of intussusception by barium enema: a clinical and experimental study. Ann Surg 128:904–917. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-194811000-00003 - DOI
-
- Ravitch MM (1956) The nonoperative treatment of intussusception: hydrostatic pressure reduction by barium enema. Surg Clin North Am 36:1495–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(16)35034-4 - DOI
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
