Comparing Oral Route Paraffin Oil versus Rectal Route for Disimpaction in Children with Chronic Constipation; a Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE: Functional constipation is a common and challenging problem in pediatrics. Fecal disimpaction prior to maintenance therapy is recommended to ensure successful treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and patient's compliance of the two methods of paraffin oil administration (oral and rectal route) with the purpose of disimpaction in treatment of children with functional constipation. METHODS: A total of 80 children (49 males and 31 females) aged 1–12 years, with functional constipation according to Rome III criteria, whose rectal examination confirmed fecal impaction were divided into two groups randomly. Group I received 3 ml/kg/day paraffin oil orally and group II received 3ml/kg/day paraffin oil rectally during 3 consequent days. Successful treatment was defined as no detectable fecal impaction in rectal examination after at most 72 hours. Patient compliance and family satisfaction also was evaluated using a scored questionnaire. FINDINGS: Response to the treatment in both groups was with 92.5% and 82.5% in group I and II, respectively. So, there was no significant difference between the two methods of therapy. Family satisfying and compliance were obviously more achieved in group 1 (87.5% vs 57.5%) than in Group 2 (P<0.001). No parents in group I complained about type of treatment while 12.5% of parents in group II were unsatisfied with the mode of paraffin oil administration. The most common side effect of paraffin oil in both groups was anal oil seepage (27.5%). Nausea and abdominal pain were more common side effects in group 1 and 2 respectively. CONCLUSION: It seems that using paraffin oil per oral route in comparison with rectal route could be a preferred option for disimpaction in children causing less anxiety to the family.