Betz Bradford W, Hagedorn Jeffrey E, Guikema Jeffrey S, Barnes Courtney L
Department of Radiology, Helen DeVos Children's Hospital and Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI, 49503, USA,
Emerg Radiol. 2013 Oct;20(5):385-91. doi: 10.1007/s10140-013-1138-4. Epub 2013 Jun 9.
A therapeutic enema for pediatric intussusception may benefit by using a rectal catheter with an inflated balloon. We compared the efficacy of rectal catheters without and with an inflated balloon for air and liquid enemas. We retrospectively reviewed PACS images and hospital records of children who had a therapeutic enema for intussusception at our institution between January 2006 and May 2011. Sixty-two enemas in 60 children were included. Physician assistants with training in pediatric fluoroscopy and pediatric radiologists were more likely to use air enema (37/41 or 90 %), and general radiologists were more likely to use liquid enema (18/21 or 86 %). However, the reduction rate for air enema overall was only slightly higher than for liquid enema using an inflated balloon catheter (36/40 or 90 % versus 14/17 or 82 %) (P=0.653). For air enema, mean procedure time for successful reductions was shorter with an inflated balloon catheter than with a plastic catheter (7.6 versus 28.2 min) (P<0.009), but the reduction rate was not affected. For liquid enema, the reduction rate was higher with an inflated balloon catheter than without inflation (14/17 or 82 % versus 1/5 or 20 %; P=0.021), but the procedure time was not shortened. No procedural complications were directly attributed to using a rectal catheter with an inflated balloon. Using a rectal catheter with an inflated balloon appears to safely shorten the procedure time of a successful air enema and improve the reduction rate of liquid enema.
对于小儿肠套叠,使用带充气气囊的直肠导管进行治疗性灌肠可能会更有益。我们比较了不带充气气囊和带充气气囊的直肠导管用于空气灌肠和液体灌肠的效果。我们回顾性分析了2006年1月至2011年5月在我院接受肠套叠治疗性灌肠的儿童的PACS图像和医院记录。纳入了60名儿童的62次灌肠。接受过儿科透视培训的医师助理和儿科放射科医生更倾向于使用空气灌肠(37/41,即90%),而普通放射科医生更倾向于使用液体灌肠(18/21,即86%)。然而,总体而言,空气灌肠的复位率仅略高于使用带充气气囊导管的液体灌肠(36/40,即90%对14/17,即82%)(P = 0.653)。对于空气灌肠,使用带充气气囊导管成功复位的平均操作时间比使用塑料导管短(7.6分钟对28.2分钟)(P < 0.009),但复位率不受影响。对于液体灌肠,使用带充气气囊导管的复位率高于未充气的情况(14/17,即82%对1/5,即20%;P = 0.021),但操作时间并未缩短。没有任何操作并发症直接归因于使用带充气气囊的直肠导管。使用带充气气囊的直肠导管似乎能安全地缩短成功空气灌肠的操作时间,并提高液体灌肠的复位率。