Evidence Hub

The antegrade continence enema successfully treats idiopathic slow-transit constipation

King SK, Sutcliffe JR, Southwell BR, Chait PG, Hutson JM

Journal of pediatric surgery, 2005

56 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antegrade continence enemas (ACEs) are successful for constipation and/or fecal incontinence caused by anorectal malformations or spina bifida but have been thought to be less successful in the treatment for patients with colonic dysmotility. We studied the long-term efficacy of ACE in a large group of patients with idiopathic slow-transit constipation (STC).

METHODS: We identified 56 children with an appendicostomy for ACE with radiologically proven STC. An independent investigator (SKK) performed confidential telephone interviews.

RESULTS: We assessed 42 of 56 children (31 boys) of mean age 13.1 years (range, 6.9-25). Mean follow-up was at 48 months (range, 3-118). Mean symptom duration before appendicostomy was 7.5 years (range, 1.4-17.4). Indications for appendicostomy were soiling (29/42), inadequate stool evacuation (7/42), and recurrent hospital admissions for nasogastric washouts (6/42). Both quality of life (Templeton quality of life [P < .0001]) and continence (modified Holschneider continence score [P < .0001]) improved with ACE. Soiling frequency decreased in 32 of 42 (11/32 completely continent). Thirty-seven of 42 children had reduced abdominal pain severity (P < .0001) and frequency (P < .0001). Complications included granulation tissue (33/42), stomal infection (18/42), and washout leakage (16/42). Fifteen of 42 children ceased using the appendicostomy (7/15 symptoms resolved). Thirty-five of 42 families felt that their aspirations had been met.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 56 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free