Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intussusception reduction methods in daily practice—a survey by the European Society of Paediatric Radiology Abdominal Imaging Taskforce

  • ESPR Belgrade 2023 - Postgraduate Course and Taskforce Lectures
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Image-guided intussusception reduction has been practised internationally for many decades. The use of different modalities, delayed repeat attempts, and sedation/anaesthesia are unknown.

Objective

To survey the practice of image-guided intussusception reduction.

Materials and methods

A 20-point questionnaire created by the European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) Abdominal Imaging Taskforce was distributed via the ESPR members’ mailing list and shared on social media between 28 March and 1 May 2023.

Results

There were 69 responses from 65 worldwide institutions, with a mean of 18 intussusception reductions performed per year: 55/69 (80%) from 52 European institutions and 14/69 (20%) from 13 institutions outside of Europe. European centres reported using 19/52 (37%) fluoroscopy, 18/52 (35%) ultrasound, and 15/52 (28%) a mixture of both, with 30/52 (58%) offering a delayed repeat at 15 min to 24 h. Non-European centres reported using 5/13 (39%) fluoroscopy, 6/13 ultrasound (46%), and 2/13 (15%) a mixture of both, with 9/13 (69%) offering a delayed repeat attempt. Sedation or analgesia was used in 35/52 (67%) of European and 2/13 (15%) non-European institutions.

Conclusion

There is wide variation in how image-guided intussusception reduction is performed, and in the use of sedation/anaesthesia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data available within the article.

References

  1. Bekdash B, Merven S, Sprigg A (2013) Reduction of intussusception: defining a better index of successful non-operative treatment. Pediatr Radiol 43:649–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sadigh G, Zou K, Razavi S et al (2015) Meta-analysis of air versus liquid enema for intussusception reduction in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W542-549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenfeld K, McHugh K (1999) Survey of intussusception reduction in England, Scotland and Wales: how and why we could do better. Clin Radiol 54:452–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fiegel H, Gfroerer S, Rolle U (2016) Systematic review shows that pathological lead points are important and frequent in intussusception and are not limited to infants. Acta Paediatr 105:1275–1279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chew R, Ditchfield M, Paul E, Goergen S (2017) Comparison of safety and efficacy of image-guided enema reduction techniques for paediatric intussusception: a review of the literature. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61:711–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Plut D, Phillips G, Johnston P, Lee E (2020) Practical imaging strategies for intussusception in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 215:1449–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanchez T, Doskocil B, Stein-Wexler R (2015) Nonsurgical management of childhood intussusception: retrospective comparison between sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance. J Ultrasound Med 34:59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Google Forms (2023) ESPR intussusception reduction survey. Available: https://forms.gle/ypmvgjPd64uuALrP7. Accessed 30 April 2023

  9. Gu L, Alton D, Daneman A et al (1988) Intussusception reduction in children by rectal insufflation of air. AJR Am J Roentgenol 150:1345–1348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yoon S, Han C, Eun S (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of intussusception: a systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 26:9040–9049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Xie X, Wu Y, Wang Q et al (2018) A randomized trial of pneumatic reduction versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 53:1464–1468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmit P, Rohrschneider W, Christmann D (1999) Intestinal intussusception survey about diagnostic and nonsurgical therapeutic procedures. Pediatr Radiol 29:752–761

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stein-Wexler R, O’Connor R, Daldrup-Link H, Wootton-Gorges S (2015) Current methods for reducing intussusception: survey results. Pediatr Radiol 45:667–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen H, Sammer M, Ditzler M et al (2021) Transition to ultrasound as the first-line imaging modality for midgut volvulus: keys to a successful roll-out. Pediatr Radiol 51:506–515

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Riccabona M (2012) Application of a second-generation US contrast agent in infants and children-a European questionnaire-based survey. Pediatr Radiol 42:1471–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellison J, Maxfield C, Wiener J (2009) Voiding cystography practices and preferences of North American pediatric urologists. J Urol 182:299–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Navarro O, Daneman A, Chae A (2004) Intussusception: the use of delayed, repeated reduction attempts and the management of intussusceptions due to pathologic lead points in pediatric patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:1169–1176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. van de Bunt J, Veldhoen E, Nievelstein R et al (2017) Effects of esketamine sedation compared to morphine analgesia on hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: a case-cohort comparison study. Paediatr Anaesth 27:1091–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giacalone M, Pierantoni L, Selvi V et al (2022) Midazolam premedication in ileocolic intussusception: a retrospective multicenter study. Eur J Pediatr 181:3531–3536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Teoh K, Palmer G, Teague W et al (2021) Periprocedural analgesia and sedation in air enema reduction for intussusception: a retrospective Australian cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health 57:103–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldman O, Weiser G, Hanna M et al (2017) Success rate of pneumatic reduction of intussusception with and without sedation. Paediatr Anaesth 27:190–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Khorana J, Tepjuk S, Singhavejsakul J et al (2023) A comparison of the success rate of pneumatic reduction in intussusception between general anesthesia and deep sedation: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Surg Int 39:186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, Great Ormond Street, London, WC1H 3JH, UK

    Riwa Meshaka, Alistair Calder & Giulia Perucca

  2. Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Department of Paediatric Radiology, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway

    Lil-Sofie Ording Müller

  3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, McMaster Children’s Hospital, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Samuel Stafrace

  4. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Hôpital Bicêtre, Hôpitaux Universitaire Paris-Sud, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    Stéphanie Franchi Abella

  5. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Carmelo Sofia

  6. Pediatric and Prenatal Imaging Unit, Aix Marseille University, La Timone-Enfants Hospital, Marseille, France

    Philippe Petit

Authors
  1. Riwa Meshaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lil-Sofie Ording Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Stafrace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stéphanie Franchi Abella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carmelo Sofia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alistair Calder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Philippe Petit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giulia Perucca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.P. conceptualised and designed the study. R.M., L-S.O-M., S.S., S.F.A., C.S., A.C., P.P., and G.P prepared material and collected data. R.M. and G.P. performed data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to review and editing of the draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riwa Meshaka.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meshaka, R., Müller, LS.O., Stafrace, S. et al. Intussusception reduction methods in daily practice—a survey by the European Society of Paediatric Radiology Abdominal Imaging Taskforce. Pediatr Radiol 54, 571–584 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05798-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-023-05798-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation