7.10 Intussusception
Clinical
Clinically, the four classic symptoms and signs of vomiting, abdominal pain, abdominal mass and bloody stool described in patients with intussusception are present in less than one half of patients with the disease.1,2 Intestinal obstruction is often the presenting sign.
Investigations
All children should be resuscitated and stabilised prior to any imaging.
Abdominal X-ray
A plain abdominal radiograph may be performed, as a screen or if a reliable ultrasound is not readily available. Early in the course of the disease it may be normal, or it may show an absence of air in the right upper quadrant and a right-sided soft tissue shadow giving an impression of an intracolonic mass. There may be dilated small bowel and an absence of intraluminal gas in the region of the caecum. The presence of stool and air fluid levels in the caecum makes the diagnosis of intussusception less likely.3,4 The accuracy of plain radiography in diagnosis or exclusion of intussusception ranges from 40 to 90%. In cases of established bowel obstruction, distended bowel loops and air-fluid levels will be present. The presence of any free air indicates perforation and precludes non-operative intervention.
Traditionally, the diagnosis of intussusception is made by the use of an enema, either using air or barium. Contrast enema is a quick and reliable investigation and is often also therapeutic. Barium has traditionally been the contrast material used but perforation can result in barium and faecal peritonitis.5–7 The availability of near-isotonic water media and the use of air as a contrast medium8,9 have changed the traditional therapeutic approach. The advantages of air reduction are its rapidity and safety compared with barium. In the case of perforation during the procedure, air enema has been shown to result in a smaller tear than hydrostatic enema with markedly less spillage of faeces.10 In addition, air has no deleterious consequences within the abdominal cavity.11,12
Findings on contrast examination include the classical ‘coiled spring sign’, which is caused by the contrast material tracking around the lumen of the oedematous intestine and the ‘meniscus sign’ is produced by rounded apex of the intussusceptum protruding into the column of contrast material.13
Ultrasound
This is the imaging of choice to demonstrate intussusception. There are some recent studies to suggest that ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of intussusception. Some authors reported the sensitivity to be close to 100% in identification of intussusception, even in relatively inexperienced hands.14–16
The classical ultrasonographic sign on a longitudinal plane is the ‘pseudokidney sign,’ which is an oval or tubular structure with a hyperechoic centre surrounded by hypoechoic periphery. The hyperechoic areas represent mesenteric fat pulled with the vessels and lymph nodes into the intussuscipiens while the hypoechoic border is the oedematous wall of the intussuscepted intestinal head. On the transverse plane, a ‘target sign’ is classic and appears as a circular mass with a hyperechoic centre surrounded by a hypoechoic outer rim.17
Management
Non-operative reduction by air enema (hydrostatic reduction) is now generally accepted as the modality of treatment for most patients. Absolute contraindications include peritonitis, perforation or profound shock.18
Outcome
Various authors have reported reduction rates of between 80 and 90% using air enema.19–20,26–28 The perforation rate is quoted to be less than 1%.18,19 Factors that are associated with lower reduction and higher perforation rate, especially if more than one of the following are present: (a) patient’s age: younger than 3 months or older than 5 years; (b) long duration of symptoms, especially if more than 48 hours; (c) passage of blood per rectum; (d) significant dehydration; (e) small bowel obstruction and (f) the presence of dissection sign on contrast study.20–25
The overall mortality rate of intussusception is less than 1%.18 Mortality rates observed among children in industrialised countries are lower than those in developing countries.1,28–33 Some of these deaths are preventable and may be related to reduced access to or delays in seeking health care, factors known to be associated with mortality in children with intussusception.31–33 Therefore, early diagnosis and management play an important role in the reduction of mortality.
1 Simon R.A., Hugh T.J., Curtin A.M. Childhood intussusception in a regional hospital. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994;64:699-702.
2 Kim Y.S., Rhu J.H. Intussusception in infancy and childhood: analysis of 385 cases. Int Surg. 1989;74:114-118.
3 Heller R.M., Hernanz-Schulman M. Applications of new imaging modalities to the evaluation of common pediatric conditions. J Pediatr. 1999;135(5):632-639.
4 Sargent M.A., Babyn P., Alton D.J. Plain abdominal radiography in suspected intussusception: a reassessment. Pediatr Radiol. 1994;24:17-20.
5 Grobmyer A., Kerlan R., Peterson C., Dragstedt L. Barium peritonitis. Am Surg. 1984;50:116-120.
6 Mahvoubi S., Sherman N., Ziegler M. Barium peritonitis following attempted reduction of intussusception. Clin Pediatr. 1983;23:36-38.
7 Yamamura M., Nishi M., Furubayashi H., et al. Barium peritonitis. Report of a case and review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 1985;28:347-352.
8 de Campo J.F., Phelan E. Gas reduction of intussusception. Pediatr Radiol. 1989;19:297-298.
9 Shiels W.E.2d, Maves C.K., Hedlund G.L., Kirks D.R. Air enema for diagnosis and reduction of intussusception: clinical experience and pressure correlates. Radiology. 1991;181:169-172.
10 Shiels W.E.2d, Kirks D.R., Keller G.L., et al. John Caffey Award. Colonic perforation by air and liquid enemas: comparison study in young pigs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160:931-935.
11 Hernanz-Schulman M., Foster C., Maxa R., et al. Fecal peritonitis and contrast media: experimental protocol to assess synergistic effects and to compare relative safety of barium sulfate, water-soluble ionic media, saline and air. Presented at the 35th Annual Meeting of The Society for Pediatric Radiology. Orlando, Florida. 1992. May 14–17
12 Hernanz-Schulman M., Vanholder R., Schulman G. Inhibition of neutrophil phagocytosis by barium sulfate. Presented at the 37th Annual Meeting of The Society for Pediatric Radiology. Colorado Springs, Colorado. 1994. Apr 28–May 1
13 del-Pozo G., Albillos J., Tejedor D., et al. Intussusception in Children: Current concepts in diagnosis and enema reduction. Radiographics. 1999;19:299-319.
14 Bhisitkul D.M., Listernick R., Shkolnik A., et al. Clinical application of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of intussusception. J Pediatr. 1992;121:182-186.
15 Bowerman R., Silver T., Jaffe M. Real-time ultrasound diagnosis of intussusception. Radiology. 1982;143:527-529.
16 del-Pozo G., Albillos J., Tejedor D. Intussusception: US findings with pathologic correlation – the crescent-in doughnut sign. Radiology. 1996;199:688-692.
17 Pendergast L.A., Wilson M. Intussusception: a sonographer’s perspective. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 2003;19(4):231-238.
18 DiFore J.W. Intussusception. Semin Pediatr Surg. 1999;8:214-220.
19 Hadidi A.T., El Shal N. Childhood intussusception: a comparative study of nonsurgical management. J Pediatr Surg. 1999;34:304-307.
20 Katz M., Phelan E., Carlin J.B., Beasley S.W. Gas enema for the reduction of intussusception: relationship between clinical signs and symptoms and outcome. AJR. 1993;160:363-366.
21 den Hollander D., Burge D.M. Exclusion criteria and outcome in pressure reduction of intussusception. Arch Dis Child. 1993;68:79-81.
22 Reijnen J.A.M., Festen C., van Roosmalen R.P. Intussusception: factors related to treatment. Arch Dis Child. 1990;65:871-873.
23 Barr L.L., Stansberry S.D., Swischuk L.E. Significance of age, duration, obstruction, and the dissection sign in intussusception. Pediatr Radiol. 1990;20:454-456.
24 Stephenson C.A., Seibert J.J., Strain J.D., et al. Intussusception: clinical and radiographic factors influencing reducibility. Pediatr Radiol. 1989;20:57-60.
25 Fishman M.C., Borden S., Cooper A. The dissection sign of nonreducible ileocolic intussusception. AJR. 1984;143:5-8.
26 Gorenstein A., Raucher A., Serour F., et al. Intussusception in children: Reduction with repeated delayed air enema. Radiology. 1998;206:721-724.
27 Ein S.H., Alton D., Padler S.B., et al. Intussusception in the 1990’s: Has 25 years made a difference? Pediatr Surg Int. 1997;12:402-405.
28 Ein S.H., Alton D., Palder S.B., et al. Intussusception in the 1990s: has 25 years made a difference? Pediatr Surg Int. 1997;12:374-376.
29 van Heek N.T., Aronson D.C., Halimun E.M., et al. Intussusception in a tropical country: comparison among patient populations in Jakarta, Jogyakarta, and Amsterdam. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999;29:402-405.
30 Meier D.E., Coln C.D., Rescorla F.J., et al. Intussusception in children: international perspective. World J Surg. 1996;20:1035-1039.
31 Stringer M.D., Pledger G., Drake D.P. Childhood deaths from intussusception in England and Wales, 1984-9. Br Med J. 1992;304:737-739.
32 Adejuyigbe O., Jeje E.A., Owa J.A. Childhood intussusception in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1991;11:123-127.
33 Mangete E.D., Allison A.B. Intussusception in infancy and childhood: an analysis of 69 cases. West Afr J Med. 1994;13:87-90.