ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2023
Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: comparison of success rates between subspecialized pediatric radiologists and non-pediatric radiologists or radiology residents.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
- Predictive and Prognostic Biomarkers in Pediatric Intussusception-A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Treatment outcome of ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction of intussusception and its associated factors among pediatric patients in a resource-limited setting.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Effects of General Anesthesia on the Success Rate of Pneumatic Reduction in the Treatment of Intussusception.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024Article
- Epidemiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of 586 cases of intussusception: a 4-year retrospective study in China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ileocolic intussusception is the most common cause of intestinal obstruction in children under two years of age. Treatment in most cases is radiologically guided reduction. In Slovenia, ultrasound (US)-guided hydrostatic reduction is currently the standard of care. The purpose of this study was to compare the success rate of US-guided hydrostatic reduction when performed by subspecialty-trained pediatric radiologists, non-pediatric radiologists, or radiology residents. We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with ileocolic intussusception who underwent US-guided hydrostatic intussusception reduction at University Medical Centre Ljubljana between January 2012 and December 2022 (n = 101). During regular daily working hours, the reduction was performed by pediatric radiologists. After hours (evenings and overnight), pediatric radiologists, non-pediatric radiologists, or radiology residents performed the reduction procedure. Patients were divided into three groups based on the operator performing the procedure. Data was analyzed using the chi-square test. Pediatric radiologists had thirty-seven (75.5%) successful first attempts, non-pediatric radiologists had nineteen (76.0%), and radiology residents had twenty (74.1%). There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate of ileocolic intussusception reduction depending on the operator who performed the procedure (p = 0.98). No perforation was observed in either group during the reduction attempts. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that US-guided hydrostatic reduction is a reliable and safe procedure that achieves good results even in the hands of less experienced, however appropriately trained, radiologists. The results should encourage more medical centers to consider the implementation of US-guided hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception. What is Known: • US-guided hydrostatic reduction is a well-established method of treatment for ileocolic intussusception in children. • The results regarding the influence of operator's experience with the procedure on its success rate are scarce and contradictory. What is New: • US-guided hydrostatic intussusception reduction is a reliable and safe technique that achieves similar success rates when performed by experienced subspecialized pediatric radiologists or less experienced but trained operators such as non-pediatric radiologists and radiology residents. • The implementation of US-guided hydrostatic reduction in general hospitals without subspecialized pediatric radiologists could improve patient care by increasing access to radiologically guided reduction and simultaneously decreasing the time to reduction attempts.
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.