The incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception in children: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies addressing the occurrence of negative intraoperative findings (that is the absence of intussusception) after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of negative intraoperative findings after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction of ileocolic intussusception. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of all children aged 0-18 years treated for ileocolic intussusception from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 in 9 Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome measure was the percentage of children without an intussusception during surgical exploration after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. RESULTS: In the study period 436 patients were diagnosed with an ileocolic intussusception. Of these, 408 patients underwent hydrostatic reduction of an ileocolic intussusception. 112 patients (27.5%) underwent surgery after an unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction. In 13 (11.6%) patients no intraoperative evidence of intussusception was found. Patients who underwent surgical intervention after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction were significantly younger than patients who had a successful hydrostatic reduction; there was no gender difference. CONCLUSION: A substantial number of children (11.6%) underwent a laparotomy after unsuccessful hydrostatic reduction in whom no intussusception was found intraoperatively. We suggest initiating laparoscopy instead of laparotomy when surgery is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation in the emergency department: A study on efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED) can be accomplished with various pharmacological agents. The choice of the sedative used is highly dependent on procedure- and patient characteristics and on personal- or local preferences. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of procedural sedations performed in the EDs of 5 hospitals in the Netherlands over a 4year period to evaluate the efficacy- (success rate of the intended procedure) and safety (incidence of sedation (adverse) events) of propofol sedations compared to midazolam sedations. RESULTS: A total of 592 ED sedations were included in our study. Patients sedated with propofol (n=284, median dose 75mg) achieved a deeper level of sedation (45% vs. 25% deep sedation, p<0.001), had a higher procedure success rate (92% vs. 81%, p<0.001) and shorter median sedation duration (10 vs. 17min, p<0.001) compared to patients receiving midazolam (n=308, median dose 4mg). A total of 112 sedation events were registered for 99 patients. Transient apnea was the most prevalent event (n=73), followed by oxygen desaturation (n=18) airway obstruction responsive to simple maneuvers (n=13) and hypotension (n=6). Propofol sedations were more often associated with the occurrence of apnea's (20% vs. 10%, p=0.004), whereas clinically relevant oxygen desaturations (<90%) were found more often in patients sedated with midazolam (8% vs. 1%, p=0.001). No sedation adverse events were registered CONCLUSION: Propofol is more effective and at least as safe as midazolam for procedural sedation in the ED.