Routine Ultrasound Control after Successful Intussusception Reduction in Children: Is It Really Necessary?

Abstract

Introduction Recurrence of ileocolic intussusception (ICI) has been related to residual bowel wall edema after enema reduction. Early oral tolerance has been associated with a higher risk of re-intussusception, so an imaging test (ultrasound) has traditionally been performed before restarting oral tolerance. Our aim is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of performing a routine ultrasound in patients who remain asymptomatic after successful enema reduction.

Materials and Methods A retrospective observational study was performed in patients with ICI who underwent a successful enema reduction between 2005 and 2019 and distributed in two groups according to whether or not a routine ultrasound was performed before restarting oral tolerance: group A (ultrasound) or B (no ultrasound). We analyzed demographic, clinical and laboratory variables, length of hospital stay, and recurrence rate.

Results We included 366 patients who presented 373 ICI episodes (165 in group A and 208 in group B), without significant differences in gender and age. Group A patients presented a higher percentage of vomiting and bloody stools than those in group B without differences in the other clinical features studied, time of evolution, or laboratory variables. Group A presented a higher length of hospital stay than group B (36 vs. 24 hours), although it was not statistically significant (p = 0.30). No statistically significant differences were observed in the recurrence rate between both groups (10.3% A vs. 10.8% B; p = 0.83).

Conclusion Performing routine ultrasound before restarting oral tolerance in asymptomatic patients after successful ICI reduction does not decrease the risk of re-intussusception and should not be routinely encouraged.

Keywords

intussusception - children - recurrences - risk factors - food intake

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 15. Mai 2020

Angenommen: 21. September 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. Oktober 2020

• References

• 1 Charles T, Penninga L, Reurings JC, Berry MC. Intussusception in children: a clinical review. Acta Chir Belg 2015; 115 (05) 327-333
• 2 Aboagye J, Goldstein SD, Salazar JH. et al. Age at presentation of common pediatric surgical conditions: reexamining dogma. J Pediatr Surg 2014; 49 (06) 995-999
• 3 Gray MP, Li SH, Hoffmann RG, Gorelick MH. Recurrence rates after intussusception enema reduction: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2014; 134 (01) 110-119
• 4 Waseem M, Rosenberg HK. Intussusception. Pediatr Emerg Care 2008; 24 (11) 793-800
• 5 Bruce J, Huh YS, Cooney DR, Karp MP, Allen JE, Jewett Jr TC. Intussusception: evolution of current management. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1987; 6 (05) 663-674
• 6 Applegate KE. Intussusception in children: evidence-based diagnosis and treatment. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39 (Suppl. 02) S140-S143
• 7 Bai YZ, Qu RB, Wang GD. et al. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusceptions by saline enema: a review of 5218 cases in 17 years. Am J Surg 2006; 192 (03) 273-275
• 8 Al-Jazaeri A, Yazbeck S, Filiatrault D, Beaudin M, Emran M, Bütter A. Utility of hospital admission after successful enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 2006; 41 (05) 1010-1013
• 9 Sujka JA, Dalton B, Gonzalez K. et al. Emergency department discharge following successful radiologic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: a protocol based prospective observational study. J Pediatr Surg 2019; 54 (08) 1609-1612
• 10 McLeod JS, Gavulic AE, Wendt W. et al. Intussusception protocol implementation: single-site outcomes with clinician and family satisfaction. J Surg Res 2019; 244: 122-129
• 11 Raval MV, Minneci PC, Deans KJ. et al. Improving quality and efficiency for intussusception management after successful enema reduction. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (05) e1345-e1352
• 12 Rice-Townsend S, Chen C, Barnes JN, Rangel SJ. Variation in practice patterns and resource utilization surrounding management of intussusception at freestanding Children's Hospitals. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48 (01) 104-110
• 13 Cho MJ, Nam CW, Choi SH, Hwang EH. Management of recurrent ileocolic intussusception. J Pediatr Surg.. 2019 Oct 24. Accessed October 24, 2019 at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022346819306918
• 14 Shen G, Zhang C, Li J. et al. Risk factors for short-term recurrent intussusception and reduction failure after ultrasound-guided saline enema. Pediatr Surg Int 2018; 34 (11) 1225-1231
• 15 Xie X, Wu Y, Wang Q, Zhao Y, Xiang B. Risk factors for recurrence of intussusception in pediatric patients: a retrospective study. J Pediatr Surg 2018; 53 (11) 2307-2311
• 16 Lee DH, Kim SJ, Lee HJ, Jang HJ. Identifying predictive factors for the recurrence of pediatric intussusception. Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr 2019; 22 (02) 142-151
• 17 Kim JH, Lee JS, Ryu JM, Lim KS, Kim WY. Risk factors for recurrent intussusception after fluoroscopy-guided air enema. Pediatr Emerg Care 2018; 34 (07) 484-487
• 18 Ye X, Tang R, Chen S, Lin Z, Zhu J. Risk factors for recurrent intussusception in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr 2019; 7: 145
• 19 Flaum V, Schneider A, Gomes Ferreira C. et al. Twenty years' experience for reduction of ileocolic intussusceptions by saline enema under sonography control. J Pediatr Surg 2016; 51 (01) 179-182