C H A P T E R 3 8 
Intussusception
Intussusception is the most frequent cause of bowel
obstruction in infants and toddlers. It is an acquired
invagination of the proximal bowel (intussusceptum) into
the distal bowel (intussuscipiens). It was first described in
1674 by Paul Barbette of Amsterdam, defined by Treves
in 1899, and operated on successfully in 1873 by John
Hutchinson.1,2
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
The intussusceptum telescopes into the distal bowel by
peristaltic activity. There may or may not be a lead point.
As the mesentery of the proximal bowel is drawn into
the distal bowel, it is compressed, resulting in venous
obstruction and bowel wall edema. If reduction of the
intussusception does not occur, arterial insufficiency
will ultimately lead to ischemia and bowel wall necrosis.
Although spontaneous reduction can occur, the natural
history of an intussusception is to progress to bowel
ischemia and necrosis unless the condition is recognized
and treated appropriately.
Primary Intussusception
The vast majority of cases do not have a lead point and are
classified as primary or idiopathic intussusceptions. The
cause is generally attributed to hypertrophied Peyer
patches within the bowel wall.3 Intussusception occurs
frequently in the wake of an upper respiratory tract infec-
tion or an episode of gastroenteritis, providing an etiology
for the hypertrophied lymphoid tissue. Adenoviruses in
children older than age two, and to a lesser extent rotavi-
ruses, have been implicated in up to 50% of cases.4,5 Other
contributing evidence that viruses may play a role in
intussusception includes the rise in cases during seasonal
respiratory viral illnesses and the increased risk associated
with previous rotavirus immunization.6 The newest
immunization formulas available in the USA, RotaTeq®
and Rotarix®, have not been associated with intussuscep-
tion in both pre- and post-marketing studies.6–10
Secondary Intussusception
An intussusception may have an identifiable lesion that
serves as a lead point, drawing the proximal bowel into
the distal bowel by peristaltic activity. The incidence of
a lead point varies from 1.5% to 12% and the presence
of a lead point increases in proportion with age.11,12 The
Alexandra C. Maki  •  Mary E. Fallat
most common lead point is a Meckel diverticulum fol-
lowed by polyps and duplications. Other benign lead
points include the appendix, hemangiomas, carcinoid
tumors, foreign bodies, ectopic pancreas or gastric
mucosa, hamartomas from Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (Fig.
38-1), and lipomas. Malignant causes, although rare,
increase in incidence with age and include lymphomas
and small bowel tumors.13 Systemic diseases, including
Henoch–Schönlein purpura and cystic fibrosis, have been
associated with intussusception. Other rare diseases
related to intussusception are celiac disease and Clostrid-
ium difficile colitis.14
INCIDENCE
Idiopathic intussusception can occur at any age. Most
patients are well-nourished, healthy infants, and approxi-
mately two-thirds are boys. The highest incidence occurs
in infants between ages 4 and 9 months,15 and it is also
the most common cause of small bowel obstruction in
this age group.16 Intussusception is uncommon below 3
months and after 3 years of age. The condition has been
described in premature infants where it has been postu-
lated as the cause of small bowel atresia in some cases.17
CLINICAL PRESENTATION
The classic presentation is an infant or a young child with
intermittent, crampy abdominal pain associated with
‘currant jelly’ stools and a palpable mass on physical
examination, although this triad is seen in less than a
fourth of children.18 The abdominal pain is sudden and
the child may stiffen and pull the legs up to the abdomen.
The pain can also be associated with hyperextension,
writhing, breath holding and vomiting. The attack often
ceases as suddenly as it started. Between attacks, the child
may appear comfortable but eventually will become
lethargic. Small or normal bowel movements will stop as
the obstruction progresses and becomes associated with
bilious emesis and increasing abdominal distention.
Stools may be blood tinged as impending ischemia causes
mucosal sloughing and compression of mucous glands
leading to evacuation of dark, red mucoid clots or ‘currant
jelly’ stools. This is often a late sign as are laboratory
derangements. A pitfall is to wait for the currant jelly
stool, leukocytosis, and electrolyte abnormalities that are
often hallmarks of ischemic bowel.
531
532 SECTION IV  Abdomen
A B
FIGURE 38-1  ■  (A) Operative view of the outside of the jejunum shows a palpable mass as the lead point of a reduced intussuscep-
tion. (B) A hamartomatous polyp is characteristic of Peutz–Jeghers syndrome. (C) Mucocutaneous macular lesions are seen in this
patient with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome. Note extension of the pigmentation beyond the vermilion border.
FIGURE 38-2  ■  This 10-year-old boy has a palpable sausage-
shaped mass (arrows) due to an intussusception.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
The child’s vital signs are usually normal early in the
disease course. During painless intervals, the child may
appear comfortable and the physical examination may be
unremarkable. However, the cramping episodes usually
occur every 15 to 30 minutes and re-examination may
prove difficult. There may be audible peristaltic rushes,
and a sausage-shaped or curved mass might be palpable
anywhere in the abdomen or even visualized if the child
is relatively thin (Fig. 38-2). The right lower abdominal
quadrant can appear flat or empty (Dance sign) as the
intussuscepted mass is drawn cephalad. On rectal exami-
nation, bloodstained mucus or blood may be encountered
as a later sign. If the obstructive process worsens and
bowel ischemia occurs, dehydration, fever, tachycardia,
and hypotension can develop in quick succession as a
result of bacteremia and bowel necrosis.
Prolapse of the intussusceptum through the anus is a
grave sign, particularly when the intussusceptum is
ischemic. The greatest danger in a case of prolapsed
intussusceptum is that the examiner will misdiagnose the
condition as a rectal prolapse and attempt reduction.
C
FIGURE 38-3  ■  This abdominal radiograph in a patient with intus-
susception shows dilated loops of small bowel in the right lower
quadrant and a right upper quadrant soft tissue mass density
in the vicinity of the transverse colon near the hepatic flexure
(arrow).
Careful physical examination is mandatory and done by
inserting a lubricated tongue blade along the side of the
protruding mass before reduction. If the blade can be
inserted more than 1–2 cm into the anus along the side
of the mass, the diagnosis of intussusception should be
considered.
DIAGNOSIS
Abdominal Radiography
In half of cases, the diagnosis of intussusception can be
suspected on plain flat and upright abdominal radio-
graphs (Fig. 38-3). Suggestive radiographic abnormalities
include an abdominal mass, abnormal distribution of gas
and fecal contents, sparse large bowel gas, and air-fluid
levels in the presence of bowel obstruction. However,
plain films have limited value in confirming the diagnosis
and are not used as the sole diagnostic test. They are best

utilized as a screening tool when one of the abnormal
findings listed above is found.19
Ultrasonography
The use of abdominal ultrasound (US) for the evaluation
of intussusception was first described in 1977.20 Since
then, most institutions have adopted it as a screening tool
because of the lack of radiation exposure, ability to iden-
tify pathologic lead points, and decreased cost.21,22 The
characteristic finding on ultrasound has been referred to
as a ‘target’ or ‘doughnut’ lesion (Fig. 38-4), which con-
sists of alternating rings of low and high echogenicity
representing the bowel wall and mesenteric fat within
the intussusceptum in a transverse plane. The ‘pseudo­
kidney’ sign is seen on longitudinal section (Fig. 38-5).
This pattern is secondary to the edematous walls of the
intussusceptum within the intussuscipiens. Ultrasonogra-
phy can also guide the therapeutic reduction of an
FIGURE 38-4  ■  This transverse sonographic image shows the
alternating rings of low and high echogenicity due to an intus-
susception. This finding has been called a ‘target’ sign.
A B
FIGURE 38-6  ■  Concurrent contrast enema and pelvic CT images of an intussusception. (A) Contrast study showing the intussusception
low in pelvis. (B) CT image of the intussusception. (C) CT image of the ‘layered’ intussuscepted mass. This is the ‘target sign’ on CT.
38  Intussusception 533
intussusception.21 Equivocal findings using this modality
should mandate a conventional contrast or air enema.23
Computed Tomography and Magnetic
Resonance Imaging
Neither computed tomography (CT)24 nor magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) are routinely used in the evalu-
ation of a patient with intussusception, although either
may confirm this diagnosis and/or pathologic causes for
intussusception, such as a malignancy (i.e., lymphoma).
The characteristic CT finding is a ‘target’ or ‘doughnut’
sign (Fig. 38-6). Transient small bowel intussusceptions
that are discovered on CT or MRI are usually not clini-
cally significant.21 Radiographic or operative treatment
FIGURE 38-5  ■  Sonogram showing the ‘pseudokidney’ sign seen
with intussusception on longitudinal section.
C
534 SECTION IV  Abdomen
should be based on clinical findings in symptomatic
patients.25 Laparoscopy is an excellent means to evaluate
these patients if surgical intervention is needed.
NONOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
If the diagnosis of intussusception is suspected, a nasogas-
tric tube may be helpful to decompress the stomach.
Bowel rest and intravenous fluid resuscitation should be
initiated. A complete blood cell count and serum electro-
lytes are obtained. An air or contrast enema is first-line
treatment as long as there are no contraindications to
nonoperative reduction. Contraindications include intes-
tinal perforation (free intra-abdominal air), peritonitis, or
persistent hypotension. The advantages of nonoperative
reduction are decreased morbidity, cost, and length of
hospitalization.
Hydrostatic and Pneumatic Reduction
The methodology for hydrostatic reduction has not
changed significantly since its first description in 1876.26
Hydrostatic reduction with barium under fluoroscopic
guidance has historically been used.27 More recently, chil-
dren’s hospitals have transitioned to air or water-soluble
isotonic contrast because of the potential hazard of
barium peritonitis in patients with intestinal perfora-
tion16,28. Successful reduction (Fig. 38-7) in uncompli-
cated patients is seen in about 85% of cases and ranges
from 42% to 95%.29
Pneumatic reduction was first described in 1897.30 It
gained popularity in the late 1980s. Since then, many
institutions have adopted pneumatic decompression
because it is quicker, safer, less messy, and decreases the
exposure time to radiation.31 The procedure is fluoro-
scopically monitored as air is insufflated into the rectum
(Fig. 38-8). The maximum safe air pressure is 80 mmHg
A B
FIGURE 38-7  ■  Fluoroscopic examination using isotonic contrast for hydrostatic reduction of intussusception. (A) Intussusception
(arrow) seen in midtransverse colon. (B) Reduction has occurred to the hepatic flexure. (C) Complete reduction with reflux of contrast
medium into the terminal ileum. Note the edematous ileocecal valve (arrow).
for younger infants and 110–120 mmHg for older infants.
Potential drawbacks of pneumatic reduction include the
possibility of developing tension pneumoperitoneum,
and poor visualization of lead points and/or the intus-
susception reduction process, resulting in false-positive
reductions.32–34 Rates of perforation range from 0.4–2.5%
with the most recent publications citing an average rate
of 0.8%.16,35
Tension pneumoperitoneum is best treated with
immediate cessation of the procedure and immediate
release of the pneumoperitoneum using a 14, 16, or
18-gauge needle or angiocatheter above or below the
umbilicus. This should be followed by immediate opera-
tive exploration.36
For unsuccessful reduction, several studies have shown
improved reduction rates using a second attempt after
waiting between 30 minutes to 24 hours after the initial
attempt.28 In some instances, this is done in the operating
room prior to laparoscopy or in conjunction with laparo-
scopic reduction.37
If nonoperative reduction is successful either by
hydrostatic or pneumatic technique, the patient should
be admitted for observation, receive a short period of
bowel rest, and given intravenous fluids. Any clinical
signs of abdominal pain after reduction could be a sign
of ischemic bowel or recurrent intussusception and repeat
ultrasound is necessary.
OPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Open Approach
An operation is needed when nonoperative reduction is
unsuccessful or incomplete, for signs of peritonitis, the
presence of a lead point, or radiographic evidence of
pneumoperitoneum. Preoperative preparation includes
administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, intravenous
C

AA B C
FIGURE 38-8  ■  Plain radiography and fluoroscopic examination using air for pneumatic reduction of an intussusception. (A) Plain
radiograph showing a mass effect in the right upper quadrant. (B) Pneumatic reduction to the vicinity of the cecum with the intus-
susception still present (arrow). (C) Complete reduction with reflux of air into multiple loops of small intestine. (Courtesy of Charles
Maxfield, MD.)
FIGURE 38-9  ■  A right lower quadrant muscle-splitting incision
allows delivery of the intussusception through the incision.
Gentle and continuous massage from distal to proximal usually
results in reduction of the intussusception.
fluid resuscitation, insertion of a urinary catheter, and
placement of a nasogastric tube for gastric decompression.
Most commonly, the cecum and terminal ileum are
involved, and can be delivered through the traditional
right lower abdominal incision (Fig. 38-9). It is important
to evaluate the extent of the intussusceptum before deliv-
ering it as it can extend into the rectosigmoid region in
severe cases which usually requires extension of the
incision.
Once the leading edge of the intussusceptum is identi-
fied, it is gently manipulated back toward its normal posi-
tion in the terminal ileum. Excessive force or pulling is
avoided to prevent injury or perforation of the bowel.
Inability to manually reduce the intussusception, the
38  Intussusception 535
finding of ischemic bowel, or identification of a lead point
requires resection and bowel anastomosis or diversion,
depending on the condition of the bowel and child.
Ileopexy has been described in patients with recurrent
intussusception after operative reduction.38 However, in
a series of 278 patients, this technique was not shown to
reduce re-intussusception rates when compared to opera-
tive reduction and resection of the affected area.39
If surgical reduction is possible, the bowel is then
evaluated for viability, perforation, or a lead point. Ques-
tionable ischemic bowel can be warmed with saline-
soaked laparotomy pads and re-evaluated. After complete
reduction of the intussusception, an incidental appendec-
tomy is often performed because the location of the
abdominal scar is similar to an open appendectomy
incision.
Laparoscopic Approach
Initially, the use of laparoscopy in the operative manage-
ment of intussusception was strictly diagnostic, or was
used in cases with equivocal radiographic studies or in
patients with suspected lead points, and was associated
with conversion rates in up to 70% of cases.40 More
recently, there has been increased success with laparo-
scopic reduction with some studies showing conversion
rates as low as 5.4%41 but more in the range of
12–40%.37,42–44
Where laparoscopy fits into a surgeon’s therapeutic
algorithm is a topic frequently discussed. It would be
beneficial to identify any preoperative risk factors. No
study to date has specifically addressed this topic although
some have noted an increased conversion rate associated
with lead points. Recently, a retrospective analysis of
65 cases found that in patients unable to be reduced
laparoscopically, 33% had a lead point that necessitated
conversion to open (Fig. 38-10).45 Contraindications to
laparoscopy include peritonitis, hemodynamic instability,
and severe bowel distension that precludes adequate
visualization.41
536 SECTION IV  Abdomen

A B

FIGURE 38-10  ■  (A) This laparoscopic photograph shows an incompletely reduced intussusception with the intussusceptum (white
arrow) telescoping into the intussuscipiens (black arrow). (B) A pathologic lead point due to a Burkitt lymphoma was found requiring
conversion to open.

A B

C D

FIGURE 38-11  ■  Laparoscopic reduction of intussusception with hypertrophied lymph nodes is depicted in these four operative pho-
tographs. (A) Intussusceptum (white arrow) is seen telescoping into the intussuscipiens (black arrow). (B) The intussusception has
almost been completely reduced. (C) This intussusception has been completely reduced and the bowel appears viable. (D) Hyper-
trophied mesenteric lymphadenopathy (arrows) is seen. This lymphadenopathy may reflect a recent viral illness.

The majority of minimally invasive approaches
describe the use of three abdominal ports: one in the
infraumbilical region with two other ports along the
left side of the abdomen. Laparoscopic reduction is
accomplished by applying gentle pressure distal to the
intussusceptum using atraumatic graspers. Although
counterintuitive to the conventional open method, trac-
tion is usually required proximal to the intussuscipiens to
complete the reduction (Figs. 38-11). Appendectomy is
not routinely performed with laparoscopic reduction and
up to the surgeon’s discretion. Careful inspection of the
bowel is performed to evaluate for any signs of ischemia,
necrosis, or perforation. A criticism of laparoscopic
reduction is the loss of tactile sense that can lead to
missed pathology. If resection is required, this can often
be accomplished by exteriorizing the bowel by enlarging
the periumbilical incision. If this is not possible, the
operation should be converted to a laparotomy.
RECURRENT INTUSSUSCEPTION
Recurrent intussusception has been described in associa-
tion with nonoperative intervention in 10–15% of cases,
with about one-third occurring within 24 hours and the
majority within 6 months of the initial episode.46 Recur-
rences are less likely to occur after operative reduction or
resection.47 After laparoscopic reduction, a recurrence
rate as high as 10% has been reported.37
Patients with recurrent intussusception tend to be
seen earlier in their course because their parents are more
aware of how to recognize the signs and symptoms.
Success rates with enema reduction after one recurrence
are comparable to those with the first episode and are
better if the child did not previously require operative
reduction. This finding has led to a nonoperative approach
for initial management of recurrence in most patients as
long as they are not toxic or show signs of peritonitis or
hemodynamically instability.29,46 A concern in recurrent
intussusception is occult malignancy. Unfortunately, the
clinical findings or pattern of recurrence do not predict
the presence of a malignant lead point and radiographic
reduction with ultrasound is recommended to look for an
occult pathology.48,49
POSTOPERATIVE INTUSSUSCEPTION
Postoperative intussusception is a rare clinical entity that
has been described after ileocolic intussusception reduc-
tion and resection, retroperitoneal dissections, long
intra-abdominal procedures, a Ladd procedure, or extra-
abdominal operations.50,51 It accounts for 3% to 10% of
cases of postoperative bowel obstruction and most often
occurs in the initial 10 days following a procedure.52,53
Ileus and adhesive obstruction are more frequently
encountered as a cause for intestinal obstruction in the
postoperative patient. Thus, an index of suspicion is
needed and ultrasound is a useful diagnostic tool.51 Most
postoperative intussusceptions are ileoileal and respond
to operative reduction without resection.
38  Intussusception 537
REFERENCES
1. Barbette P. Oeuvres Chirurgiques et Anatomiques. Geneva: Fran-
cois Miege; 1674.
2. Hutchinson J. A successful case of abdominal section for intus-
susception. Proc R Med Chir Soc 1873;7:195–8.
3. Stringer MD, Pablot SM, Brereton RJ. Paediatric intussusception.
Br J Surg 1992;79:867–76.
4. Okimoto S, Hyodo S, Yamamoto M, et al. Association of viral
isolates from stool samples with intussusception in children. Int J
Infect Dis 2011;15:e641–645.
5. Bines JE, Liem NT, Justice FA, et al. Risk factors for intussuscep-
tion in infants in Vietnam and Australia: Adenovirus implicated, but
not rotavirus. J Pediatr 2006;149:452–60.
6. Belongia EA, Irving SA, Shui IM, et al. Real-time surveillance to
assess risk of intussusception and other adverse events after pen-
tavalent, bovine-derived rotavirus vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J
2010;29:1–5.
7. Shui IM, Baggs J, Patel M, et al. Risk of intussusception following
administration of a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in ultrasound
infants. JAMA 2012;307:598–604.
8. Buttery JP, Danchin MH, Lee KJ, et al. Intussusception following
rotavirus vaccine administration: Post-marketing surveillance in
the National Immunization Program in Australia. Vaccine
2011;29:3061–6.
9. Ruiz-Palacios GM, Perez-Schael I, Velazquez FR, et al. Safety and
efficacy of an attenuated vaccine against severe rotavirus gastroen-
teritis. N Engl J Med 2006;354:11–22.
10. Vesikari T, Matson DO, Dennehy P, et al. Safety and efficacy of a
pentavalent human-bovine (WC3) reassortant rotavirus vaccine.
N Engl J Med 2006;354:23–33.
11. Blakelock RT, Beasley SW. The clinical implications of non-
idiopathic intussusception. Pediatr Surg Int 1998;14:163–7.
12. West KW, Grosfeld JL. Intussusception in Infants and Children.
Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1999.
13. Rampone B, Roviello F, Marrelli D, et al. Late recurrence of malig-
nant melanoma presenting as small bowel intussusception. Dig Dis
Sci 2006;51:1047–8.
14. Park JH. CMH. Intussusception associated with pseudomembra-
nous colitis [Letter to the Editor]. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
2008;46:470–1.
15. Huppertz HI, Soriano-Gabarro M, Grimprel E, et al. Intussuscep-
tion among young children in Europe. Pediatr Infect Dis J
2006;25(Suppl. 1):S22–9.
16. Applegate KE. Clinically suspected intussusception in children:
Evidence-based review and self-assessment module. AJR Am J
Roentgenol 2005;185(Suppl. 3):S175–83.
17. Kong FT, Liu WY, Tang YM, et al. Intussusception in infants
younger than 3 months: A single center’s experience. World J
Pediatr 2010;6:55–9.
18. Kaiser AD, Applegate KE, Ladd AP. Current success in the treat-
ment of intussusception in children. Surgery 2007;142:469–77.
19. Weihmiller SN, Buonomo C, Bachur R. Risk stratification of chil-
dren being evaluated for intussusception. Pediatrics 2011;127:
e296–303.
20. Burke LF, Clark E. Ileocolic intussusception–a case report. J Clin
Ultrasound 1977;5:346–7.
21. Henrikson S, Blane CE, Koujok K, et al. The effect of screening
sonography on the positive rate of enemas for intussusception.
Pediatr Radiol 2003;33:190–3.
22. Navarro O, Daneman A. Intussusception. Part 3: Diagnosis and
management of those with an identifiable or predisposing cause and
those that reduce spontaneously. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34:305–12.
23. Gu L, Zhu H, Wang S, et al. Sonographic guidance of air enema
for intussusception reduction in children. Pediatr Radiol 2000;
30:339–42.
24. Fecteau A, Flageole H, Nguyen LT, et al. Recurrent intussuscep-
tion: Safe use of hydrostatic enema. J Pediatr Surg 1996;31:
859–61.
25. Kornecki A, Daneman A, Navarro O, et al. Spontaneous reduction
of intussusception: Clinical spectrum, management and outcome.
Pediatr Radiol 2000;30:58–63.
26. Hirschsprung H. Et Tilfaelde af suakat Tarminvagination.
Hospitals-Tidende 1876;3:321–7.
27. Ravitch MM. Intussusception in Infants and Children. Springfield,
IL; 1959.
538 SECTION IV  Abdomen
28. Daneman A, Navarro O. Intussusception. Part 1: A review of diag-
nostic approaches. Pediatr Radiol 2003;33:79–85.
29. Navarro OM, Daneman A, Chae A. Intussusception: the use of
delayed, repeated reduction attempts and the management of intus-
susceptions due to pathologic lead points in pediatric patients. AJR
Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1169–76.
30. Holt LE. The Diseases of Infancy and Childhood: For the Use of
Students and Practioners of Medicine. New York: Appleton; 1897.
31. Guo JZ, Ma XY, Zhou QH. Results of air pressure enema reduction
of intussusception: 6,396 cases in 13 years. J Pediatr Surg
1986;21:1201–3.
32. Kirks DR. Air intussusception reduction: ‘the winds of change’.
Pediatr Radiol 1995;25:89–91.
33. Peh WC, Khong PL, Chan KL, et al. Sonographically guided
hydrostatic reduction of childhood intussusception using Hart-
mann’s solution. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1237–41.
34. Maoate K, Beasley SW. Perforation during gas reduction of intus-
susception. Pediatr Surg Int 1998;14:168–70.
35. Tareen F, Ryan S, Avanzini S, et al. Does the length of the history
influence the outcome of pneumatic reduction of intussusception
in children? Pediatr Surg Int 2011;27:587–9.
36. Sohoni A, Wang NE, Dannenberg B. Tension pneumoperitoneum
after intussusception pneumoreduction. Pediatr Emerg Care
2007;23:563–4.
37. Kao C, Tseng SH, Chen Y. Laparoscopic reduction of intussuscep-
tion in children by a single surgeon in comparison with open
surgery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2011;20:141–5.
38. Waldhausen JH. Intussusception. In: Mattei P, editor. Fundamen-
tals of Pediatric Surgery. New York: Springer; 2011.
39. Koh CC, Sheu JC, Wang NL, et al. Recurrent ileocolic intussus-
ception after different surgical procedures in children. Pediatr Surg
Int 2006;22:725–8.
40. van der Laan M, Bax NM, van der Zee DC, et al. The role of
laparoscopy in the management of childhood intussusception. Surg
Endosc 2001;15:373–6.
41. Bailey KA, Wales PW, Gerstle JT. Laparoscopic versus open reduc-
tion of intussusception in children: A single-institution comparative
experience. J Pediatr Surg 2007;42:845–8.
42. Kia KF, Mony VK, Drongowski RA, et al. Laparoscopic vs open
surgical approach for intussusception requiring operative interven-
tion. J Pediatr Surg 2005;40:281–4.
43. Burjonrappa SC. Laparoscopic reduction of intussusception: An
evolving therapeutic option. JSLS 2007;11:235–7.
44. Bonnard A, Demarche M, Dimitriu C, et al. Indications for lapar-
oscopy in the management of intussusception: A multicenter
retrospective study conducted by the French Study Group for
Pediatric Laparoscopy (GECI). J Pediatr Surg 2008;43:1249–
53.
45. Hill SJ, Langness SM, Wulkan ML. Laparoscopic versus Open
Reduction of Intussusception in Children: Experience Over a
Decade. Poster presented at Southeastern Surgical Congress Feb
2012 Birmingham, AL, 2012.
46. Niramis R, Watanatittan S, Kruatrachue A, et al. Management of
recurrent intussusception: Nonoperative or operative reduction?
J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:2175–80.
47. Mirza B. Recurrent intussusception: Management options. APSP J
Case Rep 2011;2:9.
48. Champoux AN, Del Beccaro MA, Nazar-Stewart V. Recurrent
intussusception. Risks and features. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
1994;148:474–8.
49. Navarro O, Dugougeat F, Kornecki A, et al. The impact of imaging
in the management of intussusception owing to pathologic lead
points in children. A review of 43 cases. Pediatr Radiol 2000;30:
594–603.
50. Holcomb GW III, Ross AJ III, O’Neill JA Jr. Post-operative intus-
susception: Increasing frequency or increasing awareness? South
Med J 1991;84:1334–9.
51. Bai YZ, Chen H, Wang WL. A special type of postoperative intus-
susception: Ileoileal intussusception after surgical reduction of ile-
ocolic intussusception in infants and children. J Pediatr Surg
2009;44:755–8.
52. Linke F, Eble F, Berger S. Postoperative intussusception in child-
hood. Pediatr Surg Int 1998;14:175–7.
53. Laje P, Stanley CA, Adzick NS. Intussusception after pancreatic
surgery in children: A case series. J Pediatr Surg 2010;45:1496–9.