4.3 Article

Management of bowel dysfunction in the community after spinal cord injury: a postal survey in the Republic of Korea

期刊

SPINAL CORD
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 303-308

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2011.124

关键词

spinal cord injury; neurogenic bowel; quality of life; defecation; enema

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study design: A cross-sectional postal survey. Objectives: To describe defecation stimulation methods and their outcomes, and to investigate the impact of bowel dysfunction on the quality of life (QoL) in community-dwelling persons with spinal cord injury in South Korea. Setting: Community-based, Korea. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted. Questionnaires were sent to 459 chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) patients who were registered as members of the Korean Spinal Cord Injury Association. Defecation stimulation methods and their outcomes, the impact of bowel dysfunction on the QoL were investigated. Results: A total of 388 subjects (44.5 +/- 10.8 year of age; men, 76.0%; duration of time since the onset of SCI, 14.2 +/- 9.5 years) responded. Bowel-related general, social and home QoL deterioration was found in >60%. Suppositories (Supp) were most frequently used, followed by digital rectal stimulation (DRS). The mini enema (ME), which is exclusively used in Korea, was utilized in 18.8%. A defecation time of 30 min was more frequently reported in patients who stimulated defecation with Supp than in those who used DRS. Conclusions: The use of MEs and warm-water irrigations were newly identified in Korea. Bowel care-related factors that greatly deteriorate the QoL were fecal incontinence, time in one defecation >60min, perianal skin problem, flatus incontinence and hemorrhoids. Alleviating these factors might help to improve the QoL. In particular, stimulation methods to reduce time for defecation might be recommended to persons with chronic SCI. Spinal Cord (2012) 50, 303-308; doi:10.1038/sc.2011.124; published online 22 November 2011

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