Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39085533›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024

Adult intussusception: a systematic review of current literature.

Jithin T Chand, Rakesh R, M S Ganesh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Gastroesophageal Intussusception After Myotomy for Achalasia.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jithin T ChandDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Vydehi Cancer Centre, Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. jithintchand@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9582-3100
Rakesh RDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology and HPB Surgery, Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
M S GaneshDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Vydehi Cancer Centre, Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntussusception in adults is a rare condition characterized by a low incidence, which complicates the establishment of standardized management protocols unlike those readily available for pediatric cases. This study presents a case series from our institution alongside a systematic review of existing literature. The objective is to delineate effective management strategies for adult intussusception.

methodsA systematic search of databases was conducted covering the period from January 2000 to May 2024. The study focused on adult patients diagnosed with intussusception either pre-operatively or intraoperatively and managed with either surgical intervention or conservative methods. The analysis also included retrospective review of patient records from our institution, specifically targeting individuals over 18 years of age, to determine the predominant types of intussusception and identify any pathological lead points associated with these cases.

resultsIn our study, a total of 1,902 patients were included from 59 selected articles, with a mean age of 52.13 ± 14.95 years. Among them, 1,920 intussusceptions were diagnosed, with 98.3% of cases identified preoperatively. Computed tomography (CT) scan was the primary diagnostic modality used in 88.5% of cases. Abdominal pain was the predominant presenting symptom, observed in 86.23% of cases. Only 29 out of 1,920 cases underwent attempted reduction, while the majority required surgical resection due to the high incidence of malignancy in adult cases. The most common type of intussusception identified was colocolic (16.82%), followed by enteric (13.28%), ileocolic (4.89%), and ileocaecal (0.78%) types. A pathological lead point was observed in 302 out of 673 patients (44.84%), with a notably higher frequency of malignancy associated with colocolic intussusception.

conclusionSurgical management remains the cornerstone in treating adult intussusception, particularly in cases involving the colocolic type, where there is a significant risk of underlying malignancy. Attempts at reduction are generally avoided due to the potential risk of tumor dissemination, which could adversely impact patient outcomes. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of the abdomen is pivotal for accurately diagnosing intussusceptions and guiding appropriate management strategies. It is imperative to adhere strictly to oncological principles during surgical interventions to ensure optimal patient care and outcomes.

Indexed as

IntussusceptionAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdult intussusceptionColocolic intussusceptionEnteric intussusceptionIntestinal obstruction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.