4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Pathophysiology of pediatric fecal incontinence

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 126, 期 1, 页码 S33-S40

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.012

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article addresses the diagnosis and treatment of pediatric fecal incontinence in 4 main categories: (1) Functional fecal retention, the withholding of feces because of fear of painful defecation, results in constipation and overflow soiling. Treatment includes dietary changes, use of laxatives, and cognitive and behavioral interventions such as toilet training, which diminishes phobia and provides positive reinforcement through a rewards system. (2) For functional nonretentive fecal soiling (encopresis), antidiarrheal agents can increase the consistency of stools and facilitate continence. Anorectal biofeedback for children has been proposed, but its efficacy remains unproven. Parents should be educated to conduct nonaccusatory toilet training and help children alleviate guilt and enhance self-esteem. Appropriately constructed trials are necessary to gauge the effect of adding prolonged use of enemas to an intensive toilet training program. (3) Surgery can correct minor congenital anorectal anomalies by identifying the external sphincter, separating the rectum from the genitourinary tract, and reconstructing the anus. However, there is great variation in postsurgical functional outcomes for anorectal malformations. Double-blinded, randomized controlled trials could help define the role of appendicostomy, cecostomy, sphincter reconstruction, colostomy, and artificial sphincters. (4) Children with Spina bifida and fecal incontinence may benefit from techniques that teach them how to defecate. A continent appendicostomy (Malone procedure) is a promising treatment that completely cleanses the colon, increases the child's autonomy, and decreases the chance of soiling. A cecostomy can be performed surgically, endoscopically, or radiologically to provide some of the same benefits.

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

4.8
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