AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shiels, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Summa, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shiels, W. E., 2d
Right arrow Articles by Summa, D. W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 160, 931-935, Copyright © 1993 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

John Caffey Award. Colonic perforation by air and liquid enemas: comparison study in young pigs

WE Shiels 2d, DR Kirks, GL Keller, FR Ryckman, CC Daugherty, BL Specker and DW Summa
Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.

OBJECTIVE. Hydrostatic enema reduction of intussusception in children has been replaced by pneumatic reduction in a number of institutions. Colonic perforation occurs in as many as 2.8% of enema reductions, and questions persist about the relative safety of enemas performed with air vs fluid. The objectives of this study were to investigate and compare the pathologic patterns of in vivo colonic perforation and fecal spillage in young pigs given air and hydrostatic enemas, with and without the Valsalva maneuver. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Colonic perforations were induced in 135 juvenile pigs. The pigs were divided into five groups, and enemas with air, barium, and water-soluble contrast material were given with and without the Valsalva maneuver to induce the perforations. During the enemas, the Valsalva maneuver was observed when the animals strained. In each animal, the enema was continued and pressure increased until a perforation was detected with fluoroscopy. Radiographic, gross, and histologic examinations of each animal were performed after perforations occurred. Differences in fecal spillage were noted, and the morphologic variations of the perforations and the surrounding tissue were determined. RESULTS. Perforations with hydrostatic (barium, water-soluble) enemas occurred at approximately 120 mm Hg of pressure (average bag height, 57 in. [143 cm]). No significant variations were found between the type of material used for contrast or the use of the Valsalva maneuver. With air enemas, perforations occurred at a mean pressure of 108 mm Hg without the Valsalva maneuver and at 145 mm Hg with the Valsalva maneuver. Perforations during air enemas did not occur during the Valsalva maneuver (pressures as high as 270 mm Hg), but rather between Valsalva maneuvers. Hydrostatic enemas produced full-thickness tears that were larger than those induced by air enemas in all cases. Air enemas with and without the Valsalva maneuver produced partial-thickness tears in 45% and 10%, respectively, of the pigs. Fecal spillage was diffuse in all hydrostatic perforations. In air enemas, spillage was focal in 55% and 90%, respectively, and absent in 45% and 10%, respectively, of perforations produced with and without the Valsalva maneuver. CONCLUSION. Our results suggest that air enemas are safer than liquid enemas. Perforations that occurred during air enemas were smaller and associated with less fecal spillage and peritoneal contamination. The Valsalva maneuver appears to prevent colonic perforation during air enemas.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
J. H. Lee, S. H. Choi, Y. K. Jeong, W. J. Kwon, A. K. Jeong, B. S. Kang, and S. H. Shin
Intermittent sonographic guidance in air enemas for reduction of childhood intussusception.
J. Ultrasound Med., September 1, 2006; 25(9): 1125 - 1130.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. E. Applegate
Clinically Suspected Intussusception in Children: Evidence-Based Review and Self-Assessment Module
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3_supp): S175 - S183.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
C. H. Yoon, H. J. Kim, and H. W. Goo
Intussusception in Children: US-guided Pneumatic Reduction--Initial Experience
Radiology, January 1, 2001; 218(1): 85 - 88.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
G. del-Pozo, J. C. Albillos, D. Tejedor, R. Calero, M. Rasero, U. de-la-Calle, and U. Lopez-Pacheco
Intussusception in Children: Current Concepts in Diagnosis and Enema Reduction
RadioGraphics, March 1, 1999; 19(2): 299 - 319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.