空气与液体灌肠治疗小儿肠套叠临床疗效的Meta分析

doi:10.19739/j.cnki.issn1001-9510.2019.02.004

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (1)

Download: PDF (2251 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To compare the efficiency and safety of air versus liquid enema reduction for intussusception in children.Methods PubMed,Medline,Cochrane Library,Embase,VIP,CNKI,CBMdisc and Wanfang Database were retrieved.The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to March 1st ,2018. After the detected literatures being screened,extracted and evaluated,a Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.Results Finally,a total of 140 articles including 76 reporting air enema and 64 reporting liquid enema with 41 292 patients were enrolled.In 75 articles (24 550 patients), the combined success rate of air enema was 88% (95% CI,86%～89%;I²=95%), and in 64 articles (16 092 patients) of liquid enema,it was 80% (95%CI,78%～83%;I²=96%).In 57 articles (20 290 patients),the combined perforation rate for air enema was 1% (95% CI,1%～1%;I²=53%),and in 36 articles (10 486 patients) of liquid enema,it was 1% (95% CI,0%～1%;I² =0%).Among 5 430 patients (20 articles) undergoing air enema reduction, the rate of recurrence was 7% (95% CI,5%～9%;I²=85%), and in 10 articles (1 792 patients) of liquid enema,it was11% (95% CI,7%～15%;I²=71%).Conclusion Air enema is superior to liquid enema for intussusception in children. The success rate of air enema is significantly higher than that of liquid enema, and the recurrence rate is significantly lower than that of liquid enema.There is no significant difference in perforation rate.

Key words： air enema liquid enema children intussusception

Received: 05 August 2018

PACS:

R725.7

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	SUN Shuai
	GENG Lei
	XU Xiaoliang
	DING Guojian
	ZHENG Bufeng
	LIU Xijie
	FENG Wenyu
	FU Tingliang

Cite this article:

SUN Shuai,GENG Lei,XU Xiaoliang, et al. Meta analysis of efficiency and safety of air versus liquid enema reduction in the treatment of children with intussusception[J]. 滨州医学院学报, 2019, 42(2): 90-95.

URL:

http://manu58.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_bzyxy/EN/10.19739/j.cnki.issn1001-9510.2019.02.004 OR http://manu58.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_bzyxy/EN/Y2019/V42/I2/90

[1] 蔡威,孙宁,魏光辉.小儿外科学[M].5版,北京:人民卫生出版社,2014,308-311.
[2] 杨纲,蒋文军,曹李明,等.不同年龄组肠套叠患儿的临床特点分析[J].中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版),2014,10(2):150-154.
[3] 崔朋伟,刘娜,李静欣,等.苏州市2007-2013年2岁以下儿童住院肠套叠流行特征[J].中华流行病学杂志,2016,37(3):410-414.
[4] 鞠逢山,缪春兰.小儿肠套叠的超声诊断分析[J].影像研究与医学应用,2018,2(5):117-118.
[5] 吴孟超,吴再德.黄家驷外科学[M].7版,北京:人民卫生出版社,2017:1947.
[6] 陈杨,罗燕.超声诊断综合征合并肠套叠1例[J].中国医学影像技术,2015,31(6):963.
[7] 张炳,张锦娜,刘明坤,等.小儿多发型肠套叠七例分析[J].中华小儿外科杂志, 2017,38(12):914-915.
[8] Ja Lim K,Lee K,Yoon D Y,et al.The role of US in finding intussusception and alternative diagnosis:a report of 100 pediatric cases[J].Acta Radiol,2015,56(2):228-233.
[9] Lautz T B,Thurm C W,Rothstein D H.Delayed repeat enemas are safe and cost-effective in the management of pediatric intussusception[J].J Pediatr Surg,2015,50(3):423-427.
[10] Rice-Townsend S,Chen C,Barnes J N,et al.Variation in practice patterns and resource utilization surrounding management of intussusception at freestanding children’s hospitals[J].J Pediatr Surg,2013,48(1):104-110.
[11] Ito Y,KusakawaI,Murata Y,et al.Japanese guidelines for the management of intussusception in children,2011[J].Pediatr Int,2012,54(6):948-958.
[12] 陈月红,杜亮,耿兴远,等.无对照二分类数据的Meta分析在RevMan软件中的实现[J].中国循证医学杂志,2014(7):889-896.
[13] Hernanzschulman M,Foster C, Maxa R,et al.Experimental study of mortality and morbidity of contrast media and standardized fecal dose in the peritoneal cavity[J].Pediatr Radiol,2000,30 (6):369.
[14] Beres AL,Baird R.An institutional analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of pneumatic versus hydrostatic reduction for pediatric intussusception[J].Surgery,2013,154 (2):328-334.
[15] Higgins J P,Thompson S G,Deeks J J,et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses[J].BMJ,2003,327 (7414):557-560.