Multicenter comparison of non-operative techniques of intussusception reduction: saline versus air versus barium

Article information

Pediatr Emerg Med J. 2024;11(4):147-153
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 October 1
doi : https://doi.org/10.22470/pemj.2024.01081
1Department of Pediatric Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, Bangalore, India
2Department of Pediatric Surgery, Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
3Department of Pediatric Surgery, Manipal Hospitals, Bangalore, India
Corresponding author: Soundharya Srinivasan Department of Pediatric Surgery, Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, South Hospital Complex, Dharmaram College Post, Bangalore 560029, Karnataka, India Tel: +91-080-2244 3143 Fax: +82-31-780-8409 E-mail: soundharya.s@gmail.com
Received 2024 August 27; Revised 2024 September 10; Accepted 2024 September 10.

Abstract

Purpose

: Intussusception is a common pediatric surgical emergency and non-operative reduction is its first line of management. We aimed to compare 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction.

Methods

: A retrospective study was performed in 3 tertiary care centers in India from January 2017 through December 2019. In the 3 centers, the primary reduction techniques were ultrasound-guided saline reduction (USR), fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR), and fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR), respectively. As per these techniques used, we compared clinical characteristics, such as the successful reduction.

Results

: A total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 reduction techniques in the study period. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Mean time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group (30.8 ± 8.9 seconds), compared with the USR (575.0 ± 242.3 seconds) and FBR groups (495.0 ± 118.4 seconds; P < 0.001). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). No association was found between the patients’ age or symptom duration and the successful reduction. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences. Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group while no complications occurred in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

: All 3 techniques are equally effective, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction technique should be chosen based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as local availability.

Introduction

The current standard of treatment for intussusception is image-guided non-operative reduction in a child who is clinically fit for the procedure (1-3). The 3 most often used techniques for the non-operative reduction are hydrostatic reduction using barium or saline, and pneumatic reduction. A literature search yields numerous recent articles discussing the success and complication rates of individual techniques or comparisons between any 2 techniques (1,3-5). Hence, we aimed to compare all 3 techniques with regards to the rates of success, recurrence, and complications, and to ascertain an association of successful reduction with patients’ age or symptom duration.

Methods

This was a retrospective 3-center study done from January 2017 through December 2019. Routine practices for non-operative reduction of intussusception varied in the 3 tertiary care centers in India. At Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, it was ultrasonography (US)-guided saline reduction (USR); at Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction (FPR); and at Manipal Hospitals, fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction (FBR). This study was approved by the institutional ethics committees of the 3 centers with a waiver for informed consent (IRB no. EC/OA 183/2020). All children with intussusception who underwent an attempt at one of the techniques during the period were included, while those with intussusception who directly underwent surgery were excluded. Consistently in all 3 centers, candidates for the reductions were younger than 14 years. They were confirmed to have intussusception on US and had to be hemodynamically stable with no abdominal signs of peritonitis, such as a distended abdomen on presentation. In contrast, children who presented with signs of peritonitis or an obvious lead point on US were directly operated upon without an attempt at the non-operative reduction.

The patients were grouped as per the 3 techniques (see details in Appendix 1 [https://doi.org/10.22470/pemj.2024.01081]). Reduction of intussusception was declared successful when there was free flow of saline, air, or barium into the small bowel. Time to reduction was calculated from the beginning of instillation of the fluid or air to its free egress into the small bowel. In the case of failed reduction, we tried to further reduce up to maximum of 3 times. If intussusception was still not reduced or in case of complications (e.g., perforation), the patient was taken for surgery. Recurrence was defined as a US-proven intussusception in a child who had been successfully reduced. Decision for management for a recurrent intussusception was the same as the initial presentation. Any child who had 3 or more recurrences would undergo evaluation for a lead point or surgery.

According to the abovementioned group designations, we compared the variables including age, sex, successful reduction, time to reduction, recurrence, and perforation. In order to study an association of the patients’age with the successful reduction, the patients were further divided into the age groups: younger than 12 months, 12-36 months, and older than 36 months. For an association of the duration of symptoms before presentation with the successful reduction, they were categorized as follows: symptoms lasting less than 24 hours, 24-48 hours, and longer than 48 hours.

Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and expressed as means and standard deviations. Qualitative data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact tests. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Data were tabulated and analyzed with IBM SPSS ver. 21 (IBM Corp.).

Results

In the 3-year study period, a total of 255 patients underwent one of the 3 techniques of intussusception reduction, of whom 11 were excluded from the study owing to the direct operations (Seth GSMC and KEM Hospital, 2: Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health, 4; and Manipal Hospitals, 5).

Baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. Reduction was successful in 90.3%, 85.1%, and 87.7% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.961). Time to reduction was shorter in the FPR group, compared with the USR and FBR groups (P < 0.001). Perforation occurred in 1 patient in the FPR group who was subsequently managed with immediate needle decompression, followed by laparotomy and reduction of intussusception with closure of perforation. There were no complications noted in the other groups. There was no in-hospital mortality.

Comparison of baseline characteristics among the 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction

There were no significant differences in the rates of successful reduction among the 3 techniques with respect to the patients’age or symptom duration (Table 2). The children who had failed reduction underwent laparotomy and their intraoperative findings are tabulated in Appendix 2 (https://doi.org/10.22470/pemj.2024.01081). Recurrence rates were 11.8%, 20.3%, and 15.8% in the USR, FPR, and FBR groups, respectively (P = 0.522). The number of patients with recurrence who were successfully managed with reduction has been tabulated in Appendix 2. One patient in the USR group, 3 in the FPR group, and 4 in the FBR group reported second recurrences.

Association of the patients’ age or symptom duration with the successful reduction using the 3 techniques

Discussion

1. FBR vs. FPR

Earlier reports of comparison between FBR and FPR showed no difference (4), but probably with improvement in training and technique, recent studies have shown higher success rates with FPR (5,6). While both are done under fluoroscopy, there seem to be specific advantages highlighted in each. The use of barium for reduction was found to have higher rates of visualization of lead points, compared to FBR (3). However, the biggest concern in the use of barium is the possible occurrence of chemical peritonitis in cases of perforation. Once barium enters the peritoneal cavity, it adheres to the peritoneum and omentum, and remains radiopaque for years, thereby leading to intestinal obstruction. Compared to after other techniques, perforation after FBR may increase the incidence of resection anastomosis, hospital stay, and morbidity (7). In a rat study, barium was found to cause chronic granuloma or involvement of retroperitoneal lymphatics (8). FPR has the advantages over FBR of being cleaner, and having a shorter fluoroscopy time (4). The learning curve may be slightly higher in FPR as clinicians who are familiar with positive contrast medium need to adjust to negative contrast. It may be difficult to visualize the intussusception and its reduction if there is a large amount of gas in the small bowel (7). Perforation in FPR can also be life-threatening if there is a delay in diagnosis and emergent management. Trapped gas in the abdomen can cause compartment syndrome, which leads to decreased venous return, decreased visceral perfusion, or shock (9). It requires a high index of suspicion for early diagnosis, immediate needle decompression with a wide-bore needle and aggressive resuscitation of shock, followed by laparotomy.

2. FPR vs. USR

Some reports have suggested that FPR has higher success rates compared to USR (1,3) whereas a few other reports have had better outcomes with USR (10,11). Compared to FBR or FPR, USR has the advantage of complete avoidance of radiation exposure. Even with perforation, it may lead to better outcomes than the other 2 techniques. However, given the operator-dependency of US, the disadvantage is the need for radiologists or equivalent expertise. In a developing country like India, this can raise a problem, particularly in areas where radiologists are unavailable at certain times. A Chinese study shows that among the hospitals where US is used for reduction, only 36.4% of US was performed by pediatric surgeons (12). In contrast, in Germany, pediatric surgeons routinely used US for reduction without a help of radiologists (13).

3. USR vs. FPR vs. FBR

There have been insufficient studies comparing all 3 techniques. Hadidi and El Shal (14) found that there was a higher success rate with FPR than the other 2 techniques. No perforation occurred in the FPR group whereas 3 and 2 perforations occurred in the FBR and USR groups, respectively, but the difference was not significant (14). Alehossein et al. (15) also compared all 3 techniques of reduction in a single institution and found no differences in the rates of successful reduction among the 3 groups. In this current study, we have found no difference in the rates of successful reduction, recurrence rates, and perforation. This finding indicates that all techniques have comparable outcomes, but the decision to use one over the others should be made based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique (Table 3).

Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of the 3 techniques

Liu et al. (10) found that a higher success rate in USR than in FPR was found in the age group of 4-24 months with no difference in the age group older than 24 months. Another study comparing all 3 techniques of reduction found that there was no difference between the age and the techniques (15). In our study as well, we found no association of age with successful reduction.

In intussusception, edema and ischemia worsen with time, decreasing the chance of non-operative reduction while increasing that of perforation. The abovementioned study by Liu et al. (10) found that USR was more effective than FPR in children presenting with symptoms lasting 12-24 hours while there was no difference in those with shorter or longer duration of symptoms. We found no association of symptom duration with successful reduction.

The time required for reduction in our study as in other studies was shorter in the FPR group than in the USR and FBR groups (4,14). This finding is more important when we compare FPR and FBR since both techniques predispose patients to radiation hazards. According to a study on the effect of FPR and FBR on radiation dose (16), FPR lowers radiation dose regardless of fluoroscopy time, due to the density of air over the automatic exposure control cells. In contrast, the use of barium increased the dose by interfering with photon absorption (16). US completely avoids radiation exposure not only to patients but also to their guardians or healthcare workers who may stay at the bedside during the procedures.

Some reports show that all 3 techniques are being done exclusively by radiologists (15,17). In contrast, a few reports suggest a combined team approach by pediatric surgeons with radiologists (18). A pediatric surgeon is always required to stand by during the reduction for a possible emergency laparotomy. In our series, all 3 techniques of reduction have been done by pediatric surgeons and pediatric surgical residents only. For USR, radiologist assistance was taken.

Non-operative reduction is the first line of treatment for intussusception. USR, FPR, and FBR have comparable outcomes, with FPR requiring a shorter time than the other 2 techniques. The reduction techniques should be decided based on the strengths and weaknesses of each technique, as well as available resources.

Notes

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, and Visualization: SS and MGS

Formal analysis: MGS

Resources analysis and Data curation analysis: all authors

Project administration: SS

Supervision: MGS, SP, BS, RS, CNR, and RCSR

Writing-original draft: SS

Writing-review and editing: MGS, SP, BS, RS, CNR, and RCSR

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Funding sources

No funding source relevant to this article was reported.

Data availability

All data presented in this manuscript are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1. Ali A, Sheir H, Saied B, Wafa T. Pneumatic versus hydrostatic reduction in the treatment of intussusception in children. Ann Pediatr Surg 2017;13:199–202.
2. Bines JE, Ivanoff B. Acute intussusception in infants and children: incidence, clinical presentation and management: a global perspective World Health Organization; 2002.
3. Sadigh G, Zou KH, Razavi SA, Khan R, Applegate KE. Meta-analysis of air versus liquid enema for intussusception reduction in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:W542–9.
4. Meyer JS, Dangman BC, Buonomo C, Berlin JA. Air and liquid contrast agents in the management of intussusception: a controlled, randomized trial. Radiology 1993;188:507–11.
5. Khorana J, Singhavejsakul J, Ukarapol N, Laohapensang M, Wakhanrittee J, Patumanond J. Enema reduction of intussusception: the success rate of hydrostatic and pneumatic reduction. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2015;11:1837–42.
6. Betz BW, Hagedorn JE, Guikema JS, Barnes CL. Therapeutic enema for pediatric ileocolic intussusception: using a balloon catheter improves efficacy. Emerg Radiol 2013;20:385–91.
7. Ito Y, Kusakawa I, Murata Y, Ukiyama E, Kawase H, Kamagata S, et al. Japanese guidelines for the management of intussusception in children, 2011. Pediatr Int 2012;54:948–58.
8. Ginai AZ. Experimental evaluation of various available contrast agents for use in the gastrointestinal tract in case of suspected leakage. Effects on peritoneum. Br J Radiol 1985;58:969–78.
9. Zentar MS, Berteloot L, Khen Dunlop N, Bustarret O, Pigneur B, Cheron G, et al. Hemodynamic shock caused by tension pneumoperitoneum in a 5-yearold girl. Pediatr Emerg Care 2018;34:e102–3.
10. Liu ST, Tang XB, Li H, Chen D, Lei J, Bai YZ. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study. World J Emerg Surg 2021;16:3.
11. Xie X, Wu Y, Wang Q, Zhao Y, Chen G, Xiang B. A randomized trial of pneumatic reduction versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 2018;53:1464–8.
12. Tang XB, Zhao JY, Bai YZ. Status survey on enema reduction of paediatric intussusception in China. J Int Med Res 2019;47:859–66.
13. Gfroerer S, Fiegel H, Rolle U. Ultrasound-guided reduction of intussusception: a safe and effective method performed by pediatric surgeons. Pediatr Surg Int 2016;32:679–82.
14. Hadidi AT, El Shal N. Childhood intussusception: a comparative study of nonsurgical management. J Pediatr Surg 1999;34:304–7.
15. Alehossein M, Babaheidarian P, Salamati P. Comparison of different modalities for reducing childhood intussusception. Iran J Radiol 2011;8:83–87.
16. Kaplan SL, Magill D, Felice MA, Edgar JC, Anupindi SA, Zhu X. Intussusception reduction: effect of air vs. liquid enema on radiation dose. Pediatr Radiol 2017;47:1471–6.
17. Chutiwongthanaphat K, Ratanaprakarn W, Trinavarat P. Retrospective comparison study of non-operative treatment between saline hydrostatic reduction under ultrasonographic guidance and pneumatic reduction under fluoroscopic guidance in intussusception patients at Queen Sirikit National Institute of Child Health. J Dep Med Serv 2022;46:115–9.
18. Pusˇnik L, Slak P, Niksˇic´ S, Winant AJ, Lee EY, Plut D. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: comparison of success rates between subspecialized pediatric radiologists and non-pediatric radiologists or radiology residents. Eur J Pediatr 2023;182:3257–64.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Details of the 3 non-operative reduction techniques

pemj-2024-01081-Appendix-1.docx

Appendix 2. Intraoperative findings of children with unsuccessful non-operative reduction

pemj-2024-01081-Appendix-2.docx

Appendix 3. Number of cases with recurrent intussusception and management

pemj-2024-01081-Appendix-3.docx

Article information Continued

Table 1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics among the 3 contemporary techniques of intussusception reduction

Variable Total (N = 255) USR (N = 103) FPR (N = 87) FBR(N = 65) P value
Age, mo 21.4 ± 15.0 21.4 ± 15.0 18.8 ± 11.5 22.8 ± 15.2 0.280
Girls 98 (38.4) 39 (37.9) 27 (31.0) 32 (49.2) 0.320
Successful reduction 224 (87.8) 93 (90.3) 74 (85.1) 57 (87.7) 0.961
Time to reduction, sec 366.9 ± 123.5 575.0 ± 242.3 30.8 ± 8.9 495.0 ± 118.4 < 0.001
Recurrence* 35 (15.6) 11 (11.8) 15 (20.3) 9 (15.8) 0.522
Perforation 1 (0.4) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 0 (0) 0.600

Values are expressed as means ± standard deviations or numbers (%).

*

The denominators are 224, 93, 74, and 57 in the order of columns, which are the number of patients undergoing the successful reduction.

USR: ultrasound-guided saline reduction, FPR: fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction, FBR: fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction.

Table 2.

Association of the patients’ age or symptom duration with the successful reduction using the 3 techniques

Variable Age, mo P value Duration, h P value
< 12 (N = 135) 12-36 (N = 92) > 36 (N = 28) < 24 (N = 136) 24-48 (N = 92) > 48 (N = 27)
USR 39 (28.9) 42 (45.7) 12 (42.9) 0.818 44 (32.4) 45 (48.9) 4 (14.8) 0.881
FPR 44 (32.6) 26 (28.3) 4 (14.3) 0.731 44 (32.4) 23 (25.0) 7 (25.9) 0.572
FBR 30 (22.2) 21 (22.8) 6 (21.4) 0.945 35 (25.7) 16 (17.4) 6 (22.2) 0.888

Values are expressed as numbers (%).

USR: ultrasound-guided saline reduction, FPR: fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction, FBR: fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction.

Table 3.

Comparison of strengths and weaknesses of the 3 techniques

Variable USR FPR FBR
Radiation exposure No Yes Yes
Perforation Less morbid Tension pneumoperitoneum leading to hemodynamic shock Barium peritonitis
Time to reduction Longer Shorter Longer
Cleanliness of procedure* Messy Clean Messy
Pressure monitoring No Yes No
Need for radiologists Yes No No
Detection of lead points Higher Lower Higher
*

During the use of saline or barium, there is usually leak per rectally and spillage, rendering the procedure messy for the patient, doctor and the procedure suite.

USR: ultrasound-guided saline reduction, FPR: fluoroscopy-guided pneumatic reduction, FBR: fluoroscopy-guided barium reduction.