Reduction of ileocolic intussusception under sedation or anaesthesia: a systematic review of complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".