Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 41, Issue 11, pp 1365–1368

Pediatric radiology fellows’ experience with intussusception reduction

  • Rebecca Stein-Wexler
  • Cyrus Bateni
  • Sandra L. Wootton-Gorges
  • Chin-Shang Li
Original Article



Intussusception reduction allows young children to avoid surgery. However, graduating residents have had relatively little training in intussusception reduction and, for the most part, consider themselves ill-prepared to perform this procedure.


The goal of this study was to assess the extent of training in intussusception reduction during one year of a pediatric radiology fellowship and to determine whether graduating fellows consider themselves adequately trained in this technique.

Materials and methods

Pediatric radiology fellows were surveyed during June 2010 and asked to characterize their fellowship, to indicate the number of intussusception reductions performed (both the total number and those performed with faculty oversight but without active faculty involvement), and to assess the adequacy of their training.


There were 31 responses, representing almost 1/3 of current fellows. Pediatric radiology fellows perform on average 6.9 reductions, 3.8 of which are with faculty oversight but without active faculty involvement. Ninety percent consider themselves well-trained in the technique, whereas 10% are uncertain (none consider their training inadequate).


Almost all pediatric radiology fellows consider their training in intussusception reduction to be adequate.


Intussusception reduction Fellowship Simulation Education Radiology 


  1. 1.
    Meyer JS, Dangman BC, Buonomo C et al (1993) Air and liquid contrast agents in the management of intussusception: a controlled, randomized trial. Radiology 188:507–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bateni C, Stein-Wexler R, Wootton-Gorges SL et al (2010) Radiology residents’ experience with intussusception reduction. Pediatr Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00247-010-1923-0. Dec 22 [Epub ahead of print]PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. Available via Accessed 13 March 2010
  4. 4.
    Stein-Wexler R, Sanchez T, Roper GE et al (2010) An interactive teaching device simulating intussusception reduction. Pediatr Radiol 11:1810–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jen HC, Shew SB (2009) The impact of hospital type and experience on the operative utilization in pediatric intussusception: a nationwide study. J Pediatr Surg 44:241–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shekherdimian S, Lee SL (2011) Management of pediatric intussusception in general hospitals: diagnosis, treatment, and differences based on age. World J Pediatr 7:70–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daneman A, Alton DJ, Ein S et al (1995) Perforation during attempted intussusception reduction in children—comparison of perforation with barium and air. Pediatr Radiol 25:81–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirks DR (1995) Air intussusception reduction: “the winds of change”. Pediatr Radiol 25:89–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shiels WE, Maves CK, Hedlung GL et al (1991) Air enema for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception: clinical experience and pressure correlates. Radiology 181:169–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shiels WE, Kirks DR, Keller GL et al (1993) John Caffey Award: Colonic perforation by air and liquid enemas: comparison study in young pigs. AJR 160:931–935PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stein M, Alton DJ, Daneman A (1992) Pneumatic reduction of intussusception: 5-year experience. Radiology 183:681–684PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Stein-Wexler
    • 1
  • Cyrus Bateni
    • 1
  • Sandra L. Wootton-Gorges
    • 1
  • Chin-Shang Li
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California at DavisSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of BiostatisticsUniversity of California at DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations