Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Case report
Adult intussusception associated with mesenteric Meckel’s diverticulum and antimesenteric ileal polyp
  1. Adrian K McGrath,
  2. Fatimah Suliman,
  3. Noel Thin and
  4. Ashish Rohatgi
  1. Department of General Surgery, Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Adrian K McGrath, adrian.mcgrath2{at}nhs.net

Abstract

Meckel’s diverticulum is the most common congenital abnormality affecting the gastrointestinal tract, affecting 4% of the general population. It is classically located on the antimesenteric border of the ileum within 100 cm of the ileocaecal valve. Complications may include haemorrhage, bowel obstruction, diverticulitis, perforation and malignancy. This report explores the case of intussusception in an adult, in association with a mesenteric Meckel’s diverticulum and adjacent benign polyp. A 40-year-old man presented with acute abdominal pain, affecting the central abdomen and both flanks. CT imaging revealed small bowel intussusception, with either a Meckel’s diverticulum or polyp acting as a lead point. Intraoperatively, the intussusception had already resolved; however, an inflamed outpouching was identified on the mesenteric border of the ileum, with a firm mass palpable within the bowel lumen. A 70 mm small bowel resection and primary anastomosis were performed. Histopathological analysis confirmed an inflamed Meckel’s diverticulum as well as an adjacent diverticulum comprising a benign polyp.

  • small intestine
  • general surgery
  • gastrointestinal system

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

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.

Footnotes

  • Contributors AKM was the primary author, was responsible for drafting and editing the case report, did research into similar cases, and submitted the case report. FS was responsible for data collection for the case report and edited and drafted the case report. NT was responsible for the planning and conception of the case report, obtained photographic images used in the case report, edited and drafted case report, did research into similar cases, and contributed to discussion. AR was responsible for the planning and conception of the case report, obtained photographic images used in the case report and edited and drafted case report.

  • 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 Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained.