4.3 Article

Transanal irrigation in myelomeningocele children: an alternative, safe and valid approach for neurogenic constipation

Journal

SPINAL CORD
Volume 48, Issue 7, Pages 560-565

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2009.186

Keywords

transanal irrigation; neurogenic constipation; myelomeningocele; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Study design: A total of 60 children with myelomeningocele referred to Spina Bifida Center of Rome (31 boys and 29girls; aged 8-17 years) were treated with transanal irrigation for three months. Objective: To investigate whether transanal irrigation is a valid and alternative approach for neurogenic constipation in children with myelomeningocele. Methods: A questionnaire on bowel disturbances, quality of life and side effects was completed before the beginning and at the termination of the study. Setting: Italy Results: About 60% (36/60) of patients reported relief from constipation and 75% (12/16) for fecal incontinence. Wheelchair-bound and walking patients showed same high improvement of bowel habit. Mean (s.d.) scores before and after the study were: neurogenic bowel dysfunction total score: 17.5 (5.2) versus 8.5 (4.3) (P<0.001); digital stimulation of anorectum: 4.2 (2.8) versus 1.3 (2.5) (P<0.01); frequency of fecal incontinence: 5.5 (1.2) versus 1.3 (1.7) (P<0.01) and degree of general satisfaction: 3.0 (2.4) versus 7.7 (1.5) (P<0.001). We observed a reduction of urinary tract infections during the course of treatment: 14 total urinary tract infections (9 caused by Escherichia coli) before versus 6 93) during treatment (P<0.01) Conclusion: Transanal irrigation in children with myelomeningocele is an alternative and relatively safe approach for managing neurogenic constipation; in fact, it improves bowel disturbances, quality of life and seems to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections. Spinal Cord (2010) 48, 560-565; doi:10.1038/sc.2009.186; published online 19 January 2010

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available