UGHR and FGAR are two most commonly used nonsurgical treatment methods of uncomplicated pediatric intussusception[2, 3, 9]. However, which of these two methods is more suitable for intussusception remains controversial. This research is the first multi-center and prospective study of enema reduction for the treatment of pediatric intussusception in the world. The results of this study showed that the success rate of UGHR is higher than FGAR, without significant difference in recurrence rate and perforation rate. This demonstrates that UGHR is more effective than FGAR; and UGHR and FGAR are both safe methods for treatment of pediatric intussusception.
Intussusception is more common in children under 2 years of age, which may be caused by various etiology[10]. After 2 years of age, the incidence of intussusception declines. Therefore, stratified study was performed according to age and demonstrates that UGHR is more effective than FGAR for intussusception cases aged 4 to 24 months. So, we considered that UGHR is more suitable than FGAR for intussusception patients under 2-year-old.
In patients with intussusception, the edema and ischemia of the digestive tract worse with time, and the risk of perforation caused by enema treatment increases with time[11]. Therefore, we conducted a stratified analysis according to onset time and demonstrates that UGHR is more effective than FGAR for intussusception cases in the 12 h to 24 h group, while has no inferior efficacy to FGAR in other groups. So, we considered that UGHR is more suitable than FGAR for intussusception patients with onset time between 12 h to 24 h.
Previous studies have shown that bloody stool is one of the risk factors associated with recurrence of pediatric intussusception[12, 13], and also indicates the severity of intussusception[11], which means that children with bloody stools have a higher risk of nonsurgical treatment failure. Therefore, we conducted a subgroup analysis of intussusception cases with the symptom of bloody stools and demonstrate that UGHR is more effective than FGAR. So, we considered that UGHR is more suitable than FGAR for intussusception patients with the symptom of bloody stools.
Until now, the studies including a large number of cases in the treatment of pediatric intussusception were almost retrospective single-center study with only one enema reduction method[8, 14, 15]. There were a few original studies comparing the effectiveness of UGHR and FGAR in the treatment of pediatric intussusception. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 2018 of 124 pediatric intussusception cases in China showed that the success rate of UGHR (96.77%) was higher than FGAR (83.87%), which demonstrated that UGHR is more effective than FGAR[6]. A prospective cohort study in 2017 of 80 pediatric intussusception cases in Egypt showed that the success rates of FGAR and UGHR were equal (82.5%), which demonstrated a similar effectiveness of UGHR and FGAR[4]. Both of these two studies had the disadvantage of a small number of cases (less than 200 cases). In this study, we collected more than 2000 cases of pediatric intussusception to compare the effectiveness and safety of UGHR and FGAR. The four Children’s Medical Centers participating in this study are distributed in the northeast, southeast, western, and central regions of China, and the geographical distribution is relatively average. Therefore, this study avoids differences in region, culture, and lifestyle; thereby making the final results more credible and representative of the characteristics of Chinese pediatric intussusception cases.
FGAR has gained widespread acceptance worldwide as it has several advantages: easy to perform, quick, and clean[16].
Compared with FGAR, UGHR has some advantages. First, ultrasound can clearly show intussusception masses (including edema of ileocecal valve) and can detect pathologically induced point or residual intussusception early[17, 18]. Previous study have showed ultrasound examination has significant advantages over fluroscopy in terms of diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of intussuception[19]. This ensures patients receive accurate treatment as early as possible.
Second, UGHR is completely free of ionizing radiation, which is the main disadvantage of FGAR. Early studies focused less on radiation dose during enema reduction under fluoroscopy. Some studies show that the radiation dose of enema reduction under fluoroscopy one time is not enough to cause significant harm to the human body[20, 21]. The small effect of ionizing radiation on the human body still has unexpected hazards, especially in children whose glands are more sensitive to radiation[22]. Acute pediatric intussusception is a common abdominal condition with a high rate of recurrence. In this study, the overall recurrence rate is 9.93%. Therefore, this procedure often requires repeating. Under FGAR, the intussusception patients, their parents, and the medical staff can be exposed to ionizing radiation multiple times. The accumulation of radiation in the human body within a short period of time may also cause pathological changes; exact research has shown that receiving large doses of electromagnetic radiation can cause radiation-related malignancy[23, 24]. UGHR totally avoids radiation damage to human health, which is very meaningful for the protection of the patients, parents of the patients, and medical staff.
Despite the above-mentioned advantages, UGHR is not very widely applied because it requires special training. Our status survey in 2019 on enema reduction of pediatric intussusception in China showed that only 17.2% (22/128) hospitals used ultrasound to monitor the enema reduction, and pediatric surgeons were solely responsible for performing UGHR in only 36.4% (8/22) of these hospitals[2]. In Germany, pediatric surgeons can routinely use ultrasound to diagnose typical pediatric surgical diseases (including appendicitis and intussusception), and solely operate UGHR without the presence of an ultrasonographer[25]. In China, UGHR is not a routine training for pediatric residents, so most pediatric surgeons cannot perform UGHR alone. Having pediatric surgeons present to immediately judge and deal with unexpected intestinal perforation during enema can maximally decrease the delay of surgical treatment. Moreover, studies in the United Kingdom and Japan have supported the active role of the pediatric surgeon during enema reduction[5, 26]. We believe that Chinese pediatric surgery residents also need ultrasound training, not only for treating intussusception, but also in clinical practice of other common disease.