Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 295–298 | Cite as

Pseudotumoral cecum after hydrostatic reduction of intussusception

  • Ph. Devred
  • F. Faure
  • J. Padovani
Originals
Accepted:

Abstract

The authors report two cases of intestinal intussusception successfully reduced by hydrostatic pressure. A postreduction filling defect in the cecum disappeared spontaneously on follow-up barium enema, and is therefore consistent with cecal edema. It appears an initial period of close observation for such cases is worthwhile, delaying the decision about surgery until after a follow-up barium enema; this may confirm the disappearance of the filling defect.

Keywords

Public Health Barium Hydrostatic Pressure Intussusception Initial Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson GO, Gay BB Jr, Naffis D (1976) Intussusception of the appendix in children. Am J Roentgenol 126: 1164Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carcassonne M, Roffe JL, Bonnet G (1977) L'invagination intestinale aiguë du nourrisson. Analyse d'une statistique. Ann Chir Infant 18: 453Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Du INH (1978) Ten years' experience in the management of intussusception in infants and children by hydrostatic reduction. Can Med Assor J 119: 1075Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ein SH (1976) Leading points in childhood intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 11: 209Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eklöf OA, Johanson L, Löhr G (1980) Childhood intussusception: hydrostatic reductibility and incidence of leading points in different age groups. Pediatr Radiol 10: 83Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eklöf OA, Hogosson C (1976) Post evacuation findings in barium enema treated intussusceptions. Ann Radiol 19: 133Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallis JC (1976) Intussusception in the older child. Can Med Assor J 114: 38Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frye TR, Howard WHR (1970) The handling of ileocolic intussusception in a pediatric medical center. Radiology 96: 187Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Helardot P, Kalifa G (1981) L'invagination intestinale aiguë du nourrisson. Rev Prat (Paris) 31: 309Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martzloff KH (1926) Intussusception of the cecum coli. Arch Surg 13: 495Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pokorny WJ, Wagner RL, Harberg FJ (1980) Lateral wall cecal filling defects following successful hydrostatic reduction of cecalcolic intussusception. J Pediatr Surgery 15: 156Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valayer J (1972) Invagination intestinale aiguë de l'enfant. Gaz Med Fr 79: 1479Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wayne ER, Campbell JB, Burrington JD, Davis WS (1973) Management of 344 children with intussusception. Radiology 107: 597Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weisberger G, Mboumba A, Martin T, Boureau M (1976) Invaginations intestinales aiguës du nourrisson et de l'enfant. Réflexions tirées de l'étude de 200 observations. Rev Prat (Paris) 26: 2851Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams HJ (1975) Intussusception; facts, fallacies and praticalities. Min Med 58: 140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ph. Devred
    • 1
  • F. Faure
    • 1
  • J. Padovani
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric RadiologyC.H.U. TimoneMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Service de Radiologie Hôpital d'EnfantsC.H.U. TimoneMarseille Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations