Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shiels, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kirks, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shiels, W. E., 2d
Right arrow Articles by Kirks, D. R.

Radiology, Vol 181, 169-172, Copyright © 1991 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Air enema for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception: clinical experience and pressure correlates

WE Shiels 2d, CK Maves, GL Hedlund and DR Kirks
Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati.

Air enema was used for exclusion, diagnosis, initial movement, and complete reduction of intussusception in 186 pediatric patients. Average pressure needed for initial movement of intussusception was 56.5 mm Hg; average maximum pressure of 97.8 mm Hg was required for complete reduction. Average fluoroscopy time required for intussusception reduction was 94.8 seconds; an average of 41.8 seconds was required to exclude intussusception. Intussusception was diagnosed in 75 patients, and reduction was accomplished in 65 (87%). Of 100 consecutive patients that underwent hydrostatic reduction of intussusception at the authors' institution, reduction was successful in 55. Compared with hydrostatic enema, air enema involves shorter fluoroscopy time and lower radiation dose to the patient. Air enema is safe and effective for diagnosis and treatment of intussusception in infants and children and has replaced hydrostatic enema for such procedures at the authors' institution.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. H. Lee, S. H. Choi, Y. K. Jeong, W. J. Kwon, A. K. Jeong, B. S. Kang, and S. H. Shin
Intermittent sonographic guidance in air enemas for reduction of childhood intussusception.
J. Ultrasound Med., September 1, 2006; 25(9): 1125 - 1130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. E. Applegate
Clinically Suspected Intussusception in Children: Evidence-Based Review and Self-Assessment Module
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3_supp): S175 - S183.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
E. J. Klein, D. Kapoor, and R. P. Shugerman
The Diagnosis of Intussusception
Clinical Pediatrics, May 1, 2004; 43(4): 343 - 347.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
T. K. F. Foo, V. B. Ho, M. N. Hood, H. B. Marcos, S. L. Hess, and P. L. Choyke
High-Spatial-Resolution Multistation MR Imaging of Lower-Extremity Peripheral Vasculature with Segmented Volume Acquisition: Feasibility Study
Radiology, June 1, 2001; 219(3): 835 - 841.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. H. Yoon, H. J. Kim, and H. W. Goo
Intussusception in Children: US-guided Pneumatic Reduction--Initial Experience
Radiology, January 1, 2001; 218(1): 85 - 88.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
G. del-Pozo, J. C. Albillos, D. Tejedor, R. Calero, M. Rasero, U. de-la-Calle, and U. Lopez-Pacheco
Intussusception in Children: Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Enema Reduction
RadioGraphics, March 1, 1999; 19(2): 299 - 319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1991 by the Radiological Society of North America.