Background Despite the increased use of sedation in children undergoing stressful procedures, reduction of ileocolic intussusception (RII) is usually performed on awake children without any form of sedation.
Objective To evaluate the incidence of severe complications of RII under sedation or anaesthesia.
Design A systematic review including English language original articles of any date.
Patients Children undergoing RII (pneumatic or hydrostatic) under sedation or anaesthesia.
Data sources Ovid Embase, Scopus, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the internet search engine Google Scholar.
Data extraction Three authors independently reviewed each article for eligibility. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the incidence of intestinal perforation during RII. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of sentinel adverse events defined as death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, permanent neurological deficit and pulmonary aspiration syndrome.
Results The search yielded 368 articles. Nine studies with 1391 cases were included in the analysis. Of the nine studies, six had a score of ≤6 stars in the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment, indicating low-to-moderate quality. Propofol-based sedation was used in 849 (59.2%) cases; 5 (0.6%) had intestinal perforation. Intestinal perforation was not reported in patients who were sedated with other sedatives. One patient had pulmonary aspiration syndrome.
Conclusions Although caution remains warranted, current data suggest that the incidence of severe complications due to RII under sedation or anaesthesia is low. Due to the lack of prospective data, it is difficult to ascertain the exact incidence of severe complications.
- emergency care
- paediatric emergency medicine
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MG designed the study, analysed and interpreted the data, reviewed the literature and critically revised the article; SGS analysed and interpreted the data, reviewed the literature and critically revised the article; RJ analysed and interpreted the data, reviewed the literature and critically revised the article. DMC interpreted the data, reviewed the literature and critically revised the article. IS conceived the idea for the study, analysed and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. MG and IS have full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.