MedElevator
Войти в исследования Cureus · 2023
Oro-Anal Transit Time and Colon Manometry: Predictability and Outcomes in Children With Functional Constipation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shaukat Muhammad, Altaf Muhammad
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the correlation of oro-anal transit time (OTT) using SITZMARKS® (Konsyl Pharmaceuticals Inc., Easton, MD, USA) with colonic manometry (CM) in children with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). The secondary objective was to determine the clinical utility of these studies in directing treatment strategies.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 44 children with CIC was evaluated with both OTT and CM. The median follow-up was one year (0.3 to 7).
RESULTS: Seventeen children had normal OTT, and 27 had abnormal OTT (slow-transit constipation (STC)). There was no statistical difference between the percentage of children with abnormal CM (13) test results categorized by OTT (23.5% normal OTT vs. 33% abnormal OTT, p = 0.73). A change in therapy was accepted by all 13 children with abnormal CM, but only 26/31 (84%) of the children had normal CM. The CM test results prompted acceptance of treatment change (appendicectomy or medication escalation) in 89% of children. Overall, 31/44 (70%) of children undergoing CM testing had improvement in clinical symptoms. More children with abnormal CM testing improved vs. normal CM but did not reach significance (85% vs. 65%, p = 0.28).
CONCLUSION: Contrary to previous studies, OTT results did not predict the presence of colonic dysmotility based on colon motility testing. Colonic manometry testing resulted in the acceptance of a change in therapy in approximately 90% of children. More children with colonic dysmotility improved versus those with normal CM studies. Other interventions beyond stimulant laxatives should be considered in children with refractory constipation.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 44 children with CIC was evaluated with both OTT and CM. The median follow-up was one year (0.3 to 7).
RESULTS: Seventeen children had normal OTT, and 27 had abnormal OTT (slow-transit constipation (STC)). There was no statistical difference between the percentage of children with abnormal CM (13) test results categorized by OTT (23.5% normal OTT vs. 33% abnormal OTT, p = 0.73). A change in therapy was accepted by all 13 children with abnormal CM, but only 26/31 (84%) of the children had normal CM. The CM test results prompted acceptance of treatment change (appendicectomy or medication escalation) in 89% of children. Overall, 31/44 (70%) of children undergoing CM testing had improvement in clinical symptoms. More children with abnormal CM testing improved vs. normal CM but did not reach significance (85% vs. 65%, p = 0.28).
CONCLUSION: Contrary to previous studies, OTT results did not predict the presence of colonic dysmotility based on colon motility testing. Colonic manometry testing resulted in the acceptance of a change in therapy in approximately 90% of children. More children with colonic dysmotility improved versus those with normal CM studies. Other interventions beyond stimulant laxatives should be considered in children with refractory constipation.