ArticleAfrican journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS
Management of intussusception in children: A comparative study of hydrostatic reduction with saline under ultrasound guidance versus laparoscopic assistance.
Article in African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPS. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Laparoscopic-assisted hydrostatic reduction of pediatric intussusception: a prospective study from a single tertiary center.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in conjunction with clinical laboratory indicators to aid decision-making for surgical or conservative treatment of pediatric intestinal obstruction.World journal of pediatric surgery · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Intussusception is a common cause of intestinal obstruction in infants and children. Ultrasound-guided hydrostatic reduction (USGHR) with saline is considered the gold standard with a success rate of more than 90%. Hydrostatic reduction with laparoscopic assistance has its own advantage of direct visualisation, assessment of bowel vascularity and controlled distension. The choice of procedure depends on available resources and surgeon's preference. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the two methods, i.e., laparoscopic-assisted hydrostatic reduction (LAHR) and USGHR under general anaesthesia (GA). Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study carried out at two different centres over a 3-year period. All patients of intussusception were managed by either hydrostatic reduction with saline under ultrasound guidance or hydrostatic reduction with laparoscopic assistance. Both the procedures were done in operation theatre under GA. The operating time and amount of fluid used for reduction were noted. Results: There were 27 patients in Group 1 (USGHR) and 20 patients in Group 2 (LAHR). The two groups were similar in terms of demographic parameters. The various outcomes such as number of attempts for reduction, fluid required for reduction, time to start oral feeds, complication and length of stay were similar in both the groups. The mean operating time for Group 1 was 19.4 ± 4.5 min and for Group 2 was 34.9 ± 4.8 min (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the procedures fare equally in terms of outcome except mean operating time, therefore, LAHR is a good alternative to USGHR in resource-poor nations where logistics of intraoperative ultrasound may not be present.
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.