ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Double intussusception: a rare case report and review of the literature.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and importance: Intussusception is one of the most common abdominal emergencies in childhood, characterized by the telescoping of a proximal bowel segment into the adjacent distal segment. While single-site intussusception is frequently encountered, double or simultaneous intussusception is exceedingly rare. Delay in diagnosis and management can lead to catastrophic complications, including bowel ischemia, necrosis, and perforation. Case presentation: We report a rare case of double intussusception involving jejunojejunal and ileoileal segments in a male adolescent presenting with acute abdominal pain, vomiting, bloody mucoid stool, and a palpable abdominal mass. Radiological evaluation with ultrasonography and computed tomography suggested small bowel intussusception. Exploratory laparotomy revealed two distinct intussusceptions at separate sites of the small intestine, both associated with pedunculated polypoid masses acting as pathological lead points. Surgical management included reduction, resection of the proximal polyp-bearing segment with primary anastomosis (5 cm), and a barrel loop ileostomy for the edematous distal segment (30 cm) without primary resection. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on day 12 with plans for stoma reversal and endoscopic surveillance. Clinical discussion: Double intussusception is clinically indistinguishable from single intussusception and is often diagnosed intraoperatively. Radiological modalities aid in early diagnosis; however, meticulous intraoperative exploration of the entire bowel is mandatory. The presence of pathological lead points, particularly intestinal polyps, necessitates surgical management. Conclusion: Double (simultaneous) intussusception is a rare but life-threatening condition. A high index of suspicion, thorough radiological assessment, and prompt surgical intervention, along with evaluation for pathological lead points, are essential to achieve favorable outcomes.
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.