4.3 Article

Management of neurogenic bowel dysfunction in the community after spinal cord injury: a postal survey in the United Kingdom

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 323-333

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2008.137

关键词

neurogenic bowel; bowel management; community setting; spinal cord injury

资金

  1. Action Medical Research Training Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: Postal survey. Objectives: To describe bowel management in community-dwelling spinal cord-injured (SCI) individuals and to explore associations between age, injury, dependency, problems, interventions and satisfaction. Setting: Outpatients of a single SCI unit, in the United Kingdom. Methods: Postal questionnaire to all outpatients with SCI for at least 1 year, of any level or density, aged 18 years or more. Results: Response rate was 48.6% (n = 1334). Median age was 52 years, median duration of injury 18 years. The most common intervention was digital evacuation (56%). Up to 30 min was spent on each bowel care episode by 58% of respondents; 31-60 min by 22%; 14% spent over 60 min. Reported problems included constipation (39%), haemorrhoids (36%) and abdominal distension (31%). Reduced satisfaction with bowel function was associated with longer duration of each bowel care episode, faecal incontinence, greater number of interventions used and more problems reported (all P <= 0.001); 130 (9.7%) had undergone any type of surgical bowel intervention. Impact of bowel dysfunction on the respondent's life was rated as significantly greater than other aspects of SCI (P <= 0.001). Conclusions: Managing SCI bowel function in the community is complex, time consuming and remains conservative. Despite potential for bias from a low response, for this large group of responders, bowel dysfunction impacted most on life compared with other SCI-related impairments. The study findings demand further exploration of bowel management to reduce impact, minimize side effects and increase the choice of management strategies available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据