Air and liquid contrast agents in the management of intussusception: a controlled, randomized trial

Abstract

A randomized study comparing air and liquid contrast agents for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception involved 101 patients. Fifty received liquid contrast material and 51 received air. Rates of diagnosis were 49% (25 of 51) for air and 54% (27 of 50) for liquid contrast material (P = .62). Rates of reduction were 76% (19 of 25) for air and 63% (17 of 27) for liquid contrast material (P = .31). Air enemas resulted in shorter fluoroscopic times in patients without an intussusception and for examinations by radiologists who had performed four or more air enemas. Air enemas were found to be accurate in demonstration of intussusception and at least as effective as liquid contrast medium for reduction of intussusception. In experienced hands, the shorter fluoroscopic time with resultant lower radiation exposure associated with air is an important benefit. There still may be clinical situations, however, in which a liquid contrast agent is preferred.