Mehmet DEMİRCAN, Harika GÖZÜKARA BAG, Kubilay GÜRÜNLÜOĞLU, Ahmet SİGİRCİ, Aytaç TASCİ

The effects of hydrostatic reduction and operative manual reduction on the success of intussusception reduction

Aim: Intussusception is the most common cause of bowel obstruction in children aged 3 months to 6 years. Ultrasonically guided Hydrostatic reduction (UGHR) and operative manual reduction (OMR) are among the treatment methods. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of UGHR and OMR techniques on successful reduction in children with intussusception.Material and Methods: This study was performed retrospectively between January 2015 and May 2018. The data of intussusception child patients were reviewed. A total of 63 patients’ records were reached. A total of 31 UGHR procedures and 32 OMR procedures were recorded. Demographic data, recurrence, reduction success of UGHR and OMR patients were calculated and evaluated statistically.Results: No significant difference was found in terms of demographic information. There was no recurrence in both groups. While rate of successful reduction of patient with UGHR is 77.4%, OMR’s success is 87.5%. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of reduction success. It was determined that what was important in the reduction success was the first application time.Conclusions: When we evaluated our results, we found that the factor affecting the reduction success in a patient with intussusception was not the method of reduction. We found that the most important factor affecting reduction success was the time between onset of symptoms and initiation of reduction. If this is less than 24 hours, we have found that the reduction success is very good.

PDF

___

Karadağ ÇA, Abbasoğlu L, Sever N, et al. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception with saline: Safe and effective. J Pediatr Surg 2015;50:1563-5.
Chan KL, Saing H, Peh WC, et al. Childhood intussusception: Ultrasound-guided Hartmann’s solution hydrostatic reduction or barium enema reduction? J Pediatr Surg 1997;32:3-6.
Niramis R, Watanatittan S, Kruatrachue A, et al. Management of recurrent intussuscetion: nonoperative or operative reduction? J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:2175-80.
Ocal S, Cevik M, Boleken ME, et al. A comparison of manual versus hydrostatic reduction in children with intussusception: singlecenter experience. Afr J Pediatr Surg 2014;11:184-8.
Gross RE. Intussusception. In the surgery of infancy and childhood. Philadelphia, WB saunders. 1953:281.
Swain V. Sir Jonathan Hutchinson 1828-1913: his role in the history of intussusception. J Pediatr Surg. 1980;15:221-3.
Sigmound EH, Daneman A. Intussusception. In: Grosfeld JL, O’Neil JA, Fonkalsrud EW, editors. Pediatric Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby year book ınc;2006:1313-41.
Ito Y, Kusakawa I, Murata Y, et al. Japanise guidelines for the management of intussusception in children. Pediatr Int. 2012;54: 948-58.
Xie X, Wu Y, Wang Q, et al. A randomized trial of penumatic reduction versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 2017; 8: 30469-4.
Columbani P.M, Scholz S. Intussusception. In: Coran A.G, Adzick N.S, Krummel T.M, Laberge J-M, Shamberger R.C, Caldomone A.A, editors. Pediatric surgery. USA: Saunders. 7ht ed. 2012;1093-110.
Sharp NE, Knott EM, Iqbal CW, et al. Clinical outcomes following bowel resection versus reduction of intussusception. J Surg Res 2013;184:388-91.