Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intussusception: Single Center Experience of 10 Years

  • Resecrch Paper
  • Published:
Indian Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To analyze the association between the clinical presentation, clinical course, management and outcome in intussusception with emphasis on safety of saline hydrostatic reduction.

Methods

This retrospective study included 375 patients of intussusception diagnosed between March 2007 to February 2017. Symptoms at presentation, mode of reduction of intussusception and associated complications were recorded.

Results

336 (89.6%) patients were aged below 3 years. Classical triad of abdominal pain, vomiting and red stools was present in 111 (29.6%) patients. While 64 (17.1 %) patients had spontaneous resolution, hydrostatic reduction and surgery cured 283 (75.5 %) and 28 (7.4 %) patients, respectively; overall recurrence rate was 13.1%. Among the patients who underwent operative reduction, blood in stools was present in 15 (53.6%) patients.

Conclusions

Hydrostatic reduction of intussusception is effective irrespective of duration of symptoms and number of recurrences.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ein SH, Stephens CA. Intussusception: 354 cases in 10 years. J Pediatr Surg. 1971;6:16–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bines JE, Ivanoff B, Justice F, Mulholland K. Clinical case definition for the diagnosis of acute intussusception. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2004;39:511–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gierup J, Jorulf H, Livaditis A. Management of intussusception in infants and children: A survey based on 288 consecutive cases. Pediatrics. 1972;50:535–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Daneman A, Navarro O. Intussusception. Part 2: An update on the evolution of management. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34:97–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schuh S, Wesson DE. Intussusception in children 2 years of age or older. CMAJ. 1987;136:269–72.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Yap shiyi E, Ganapathy S. Intussusception in children presenting to the emergency department: An Asian Perspective. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2017;33:409–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Beasley SW. The ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of intussusception: Where best practice reduces the need for surgery. J Paediatr Child Health. 2017;53:1118–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Justice FA, Auldist AW, Bines JE. Intussusception: Trends in clinical presentation and management. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;21:842–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yalcin S, Ciftci AO, Karaagaoglu E, Tanyel FC, Senocak ME. Presenting clinical features and outcome in intussusception. Indian J Pediatr. 2009;76:401–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kornecki A, Daneman A, Navarro O, Connolly B, Manson D, Alton DJ. Spontaneous reduction of intussusception: clinical spectrum, management and outcome. Pediatr Radiol. 2000;30:58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fallon SC, Lopez ME, Zhang W, Brandt ML, Wesson DE, Lee TC, et al. Risk factors for surgery in pediatric intussusception in the era of pneumatic reduction. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48:1032–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eklöf O, Reiter S. Recurrent intussusception. Analysis of a series treated with hydrostatic reduction. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1978;19:250–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsu WL, Lee HC, Yeung CY, Chan WT, Jiang CB, Sheu JC, et al. Recurrent intussusception: When should surgical intervention be performed? Pediatr Neonatol. 2012;53: 300–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sandler AD, Ein SH, Connolly B, Daneman A, Filler RM. Unsuccessful air-enema reduction of intussusception: is a second attempt worthwhile? Pediatr Surg Int. 1999;15:214–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ein SH. Recurrent intussusception in children. J Pediatr Surg. 1975;10:751–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Thiruvalla, Kerala, India

    Nithish Mathew Simon, John Joseph & Ruhamah Rachel Philip

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Thiruvalla, Kerala, India

    Tu Sukumaran

  3. Department of Endocrinology, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Thiruvalla, Kerala, India

    Rajeev Philip

Authors
  1. Nithish Mathew Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruhamah Rachel Philip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tu Sukumaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rajeev Philip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Joseph.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Simon, N.M., Joseph, J., Philip, R.R. et al. Intussusception: Single Center Experience of 10 Years. Indian Pediatr 56, 29–32 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-019-1462-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-019-1462-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation