African Journal of Paediatric Surgery About APSON | PAPSA  
Home About us Editorial Board Current issue Search Archives Ahead Of Print Subscribe Instructions Submission Contact Login 
Users Online: 125Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size 
 
 


 
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Table of Contents   
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 374
Manual versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception


1 Primary Care Unit, KMT Center, Bangkok, Thailand
2 Hainan Medical University, China; Tropical Medicine Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nis, Serbia; Joseph Ayobabalola University, Nigeria

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication17-Oct-2014
 

How to cite this article:
Yasri S, Wiwanitkit V. Manual versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2014;11:374

How to cite this URL:
Yasri S, Wiwanitkit V. Manual versus hydrostatic reduction for intussusception. Afr J Paediatr Surg [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Dec 9];11:374. Available from: http://www.afrjpaedsurg.org/text.asp?2014/11/4/374/143193
Sir,

The report on comparison manual versus hydrostatic reduction (HR) for intussusception is interesting. [1] Ocal et al. have reported that "HR together with ultrasonography is a safe technique in the treatment of intussusception, which also shortens the duration of hospitalisation and significantly reduces the treatment costs." [1] In fact, there are some concerns on this report. First, there is no evidence from the present single-centre report on the cost; hence, it should not be able to make any conclusion that an alternative can reduce treatment cost. Focusing on reduction, sonographically guided HR is confirmed for its efficacy in many reports. [1],[2] However, this does not mean that there is no complication of the procedure. According to the recent report by Okazaki et al., the bowel perforation due to HR could be observed in 1-2% of the cases. [3] The good control of positioning during HR seems to be a critical point to be kept in mind for minimizing the perforation complication. [4]

 
   References Top

1.
Ocal S, Cevik M, Boleken ME, Karakas E. A comparison of manual versus hydrostatic reduction in children with intussusception: Single-center experience. Afr J Paediatr Surg 2014;11:184-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Peh WC, Khong PL, Chan KL, Lam C, Cheng W, Lam WW, et al. Sonographically guided hydrostatic reduction of childhood intussusception using Hartmann's solution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1237-41.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Okazaki T, Ogasawara Y, Nakazawa N, Kobayashi H, Kato Y, Lane GJ, et al. Reduction of intussusception in infants by a pediatric surgical team: Improvement in safety and outcome. Pediatr Surg Int 2006;22:897-900.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bramson RT, Blickman JG. Perforation during hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: Proposed mechanism and review of the literature. J Pediatr Surg 1992;27:589-91.  Back to cited text no. 4
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sora Yasri
Primary Care Unit, KMT Center, Bangkok, Thailand

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0189-6725.143193

Rights and Permissions




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1340    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded120    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal