Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Making intussusception reductions easier: use of medical air in lieu of manual pump
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Making intussusception reductions easier: use of medical air in lieu of manual pump
Do you wish to request the book?
Making intussusception reductions easier: use of medical air in lieu of manual pump
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Making intussusception reductions easier: use of medical air in lieu of manual pump
2023
Overview
Background
Pneumatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception is commonly performed with manual insufflators. The challenge of operating a handheld device while controlling the fluoroscope and monitoring the reduction could be obviated if the manual insufflation could be eliminated.
Objective
The aim in this retrospective study was to describe and evaluate the use of medical wall air in intussusception reduction.
Materials and methods
We retrospectively reviewed all intussusception reductions over a period of years: from 2015 to 2018 using the manual insufflator and from 2018 to 2021 using medical air. We compared success rates, complication rates and time to reduction as documented on fluoroscopic image time stamps. Demographic data were obtained from the medical record. Attending radiologists and fluoroscopic technologists indicated their preference between methods, ease of use, perceived duration of reduction and perceived difference in success rates through an anonymous internal survey.
Results
There were 179 first reduction attempts in 167 patients (93 attempts during the period using the manual insufflator and 86 after converting to wall air). There was no difference in reduction duration (8:23 min for insufflation, 8:22 min for wall air,
P
=0.99) and no statistically significant difference in success rate (66.8% for insufflation and 79.1% for wall air,
P
=0.165). All survey respondents preferred the wall air method. The vast majority (93%) perceived that the wall air method was faster.
Conclusion
Hospital wall air can be used to successfully reduce intussusceptions without incurring time burden or loss of effectiveness. The method leads to a perception of increased efficiency.
