Cargando…

Characteristics of the Contrast Enema Do Not Predict an Effective Bowel Management Regimen for Patients with Constipation or Fecal Incontinence

Background: A bowel management program using large volume enemas may be required for children with anorectal malformations (ARM), Hirschsprung’s disease (HD), severe medically refractive idiopathic constipation (IC), and other conditions. A pretreatment contrast enema is often obtained. We sought to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huber, Jordan, Barnhart, Douglas C, Liechty, Shawn, Zobell, Sarah, Rollins, Michael D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036987/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27688984
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.745
Descripción
Sumario:Background: A bowel management program using large volume enemas may be required for children with anorectal malformations (ARM), Hirschsprung’s disease (HD), severe medically refractive idiopathic constipation (IC), and other conditions. A pretreatment contrast enema is often obtained. We sought to determine if the contrast enema findings could predict a final enema regimen. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at a tertiary care children’s hospital from 2011 to 2014 to identify patients treated with enemas in our bowel management program. Patient characteristics, contrast enema findings (including volume to completely fill the colon), and final enema regimen were collected. Results: Eighty-three patients were identified (37 ARM, 7 HD, 34 IC, and 5 other). Age ranged from 10 months to 24 years, and weight ranged from 6.21 kg to 95.6 kg at the time bowel management was initiated. Linear regression showed contrast enema volume was of limited value in predicting effective therapeutic saline enema volume (R(2 )= 0.21). The addition of diagnosis, colon dilation, and contrast retention on plain x-ray the day after the contrast enema moderately improved the predictive ability of the contrast enema (R(2 )= 0.35). Median final effective enema volume was 22 mL/kg (range: 5 - 48 mL/kg). Conclusions: We were unable to demonstrate a correlation with contrast enema findings and the effective enema volume. However, no patient required a daily enema volume greater than 48 mL/kg to stay clean.