Observational studyWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2021
Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a multi-center, prospective, cohort study.
Observational study in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Air enema reduction versus hydrostatic enema reduction for intussusceptions in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic versus fluoroscopy-guided air reduction for pediatric intussusception: a severity-adjusted cohort analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Failed ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction in pediatric intussusception: surgical-pathological characterization of failure phenotypes under a standardized protocol.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Determinants of ultrasound-guided reduction failure and pathological lead points in pediatric intussusception.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic enema reduction for recurrent intussusception in children: a retrospective analysis of 215 cases.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Pneumatic versus liquid enema reduction in the management of pediatric intussusception: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- Risk factors associated with the outcomes of fluoroscopy guided pneumatic enema reductions of intussusceptions.SA journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Risk factors of bowel perforation during hydrostatic enema reduction for paediatric intussusception.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Ingestion of kinetic sand leading to intussusception and bowel obstruction in a child: a case report.AME case reports · 2024Article
- Epidemiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of 586 cases of intussusception: a 4-year retrospective study in China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Developing a nomogram for predicting surgical intervention in pediatric intussusception after hydrostatic reduction.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Guidance for clinical practice using emergency and point-of-care ultrasonography.Acute medicine & surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntussusception is the most common abdominal emergency in children. The first line treatment of uncomplicated pediatric intussusception is enema reduction. Until now, there have been no multi-center studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of UGHR and FGAR in the treatment of pediatric intussusception. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two most commonly used enema methods of pediatric intussusception: ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (UGHR) and fluoroscopy-guided air reduction (FGAR).
methodsFrom November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2018, we conducted a multi-center, prospective, cohort study. Children diagnosed with intussusception in four large Children's Medical Centers in China were divided into UGHR and FGAR groups. Stratified analysis and subgroup analysis were used for further comparison. The success and recurrence rates were used to evaluate the effectiveness of enema reduction. The perforation rate was used to evaluate the safety of enema reduction.
resultsA total of 2124 cases met the inclusion criteria (UGHR group: 1119 cases; FGAR group: 1005 cases). The success and recurrence rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group (95.80%, 9.28% vs. 93.13%, 10.65%) (P < 0.05, P > 0.05), respectively. The perforation rate in the UGHR group was 0.36% compared with 0.30% in the FGAR group (P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group of patients with onset time between 12 and 24 h (95.56% vs. 90.57%) (P < 0.05). Of patients aged 4 to 24 months, the success rates in the UGHR group were also higher than in the FGAR group (95.77% vs. 91.60%) (P < 0.05). Stratified analysis showed the success rates in the UGHR group were higher than in the FGAR group in patients with the symptom of bloody stool (91.91% vs 85.38%) (P < 0.05).
conclusionsUGHR and FGAR are safe, nonsurgical treatment methods for acute pediatric intussusception. UGHR is superior to FGAR, no radiation risk, its success rate is higher, without a difference in perforation rate, especially for patients aged 4-24 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.