Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 475–477 | Cite as

Pneumatic reduction: Advantages, risks and indications

  • D. A. Stringer
  • S. H. Ein
Technical Note Invited Commentary

Conclusion

It is easy to say that a “new” controversial technique is either perfect or useless. Invariably the truth lies somewhere in between. Overall, we strongly believe the air enema technique to be quicker, safer and more effective than liquid enemas in our hands using the guidelines outlined above. However, which ever technique is used, the radiologist involved should take into account the clinical circumstances of each patient. Safety has to be of prime concern in this as in any technique, and we believe that these guidelines are a safe starting point for further evaluation.

Keywords

Public Health Prime Concern Clinical Circumstance Pneumatic Reduction Safe Starting 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gu L, Alton DJ, Daneman A, Stringer DA, Liu P, Wilmot DM, Reilly BJ (1988) Intussusception reduction by rectal insufflation of air. AJR 39:1345Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miles SG, Cumming WA, Williams JL (1988) Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children. Pediatr Radiol 18:3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franken EA (1988) Nonsurgical treatment of intussusception. AJR 150:1353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Girdany BR (1988) Invited commentary on the review article by S.G. Miles, W.A. Cumming, J.L. Williams: Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children. Pediatr Radiol 18:103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Phelan E, de Campo JF, Malecky G (1988) Comparison of oxygen and barium reduction of ileocolic intussusception. AJR 150:1349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ein SH (1975) Recurrent intussusception in children. J Pediatr Surg 10:751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Humphrey A, Ein SH, Mok PM (1981) Perforation of the intussuscepted colon. AJR 137:1135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonidas JC (1985) Treatment of intussusception with small bowel obstruction: application of decision analysis. AJR 145:665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waugh GE (1927) Congenital malformations of the mesentery: a clinical entity. Br J Surg 15:438Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brereton RJ, Taylor B, Hall CM (1986) Intussusception and intestinal malrotation of infants: Waugh's syndrome. Br J Surg 73: 55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leeba JM, Boas RN (1986) Simultaneous intussusception and sigmoid volvulus in a child. Pediatr Radiol 16:248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ein SH, Shandling B, Reilly BJ, Stringer DA (1986) Hydrostatic reduction of intussusceptions caused by lead points. J Pediatr Surg 21:883PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ein SH (1976) Leading points in childhood intussusception. J Pediatr Surg 11:209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ein SH, Stephens CA (1971) Intussusception: 354 cases in 10 years. J Pediatr Surg 6:16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wayne ER, Campbell JB, Kosloske AM, Burrington JD (1976) Intussusception in the older child-Suspect lymphosarcoma. J Pediatr Surg 11:789PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Stringer
    • 1
  • S. H. Ein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe Hospital For Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryThe Hospital For Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations