4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Treatment of fecal incontinence with a comprehensive bowel management program

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 1278-1284

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.02.047

Keywords

Bowel management; Fecal incontinence; Soiling; Anorectal malformation; Imperforate anus; Hirschsprung's disease; Spina bifida; Sacrococcygeal teratoma; Colostomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Many articles describe the antegrade continence enemas (ACEs), but few refer to a bowel management program. A successful ACE may not help a patient without such management. Valuable lessons were learned by implementation of bowel management in 495 fecally incontinent patients. Methods: We previously reported 201 patients. Thereafter, another 294 patients participated in our program. On the basis of a contrast enema and symptoms, they were divided as follows: (a) 220 constipated patients and (b) 74 patients with tendency toward diarrhea. Colonic stool was monitored with abdominal radiographs, modifying the management according to the patient s response and radiologic findings. For constipated patients, the emphasis was on using large enemas. For patients with tendency toward diarrhea, we used small enemas, a constipating diet, loperamide, and pectin. Diagnoses included anorectal malformation (223), Hirschsprung's (36), spina bifida (12), and miscellaneous (23). Results: The management was successful in 279 patients (95%)-higher ill constipated patients (98%) and less successful in patients with tendency toward diarrhea (84%). Conclusions: The key to a successful bowel management program rests in tailoring the type of enema, medication, and diet to the specific type of colon. The best way to determine the effect of an enema is with an abdominal film. The ACE procedures should be recommended only after successful bowel management. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available