Non-retentive faecal incontinence in children: Conventional therapy alone or combined electrical stimulation.
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare the effects of functional electrical stimulation (FES) with conventional therapy and conventional therapy alone on improvement of faecal incontinence (FI) symptoms in a number of children with functional non-retentive FI.
METHODS
Data of 28 children with FI were accepted for this retrospective study. The case group (n = 14) underwent FES + conventional therapy and the control group (n = 14) received conventional therapy only. Data of children with faecal retention, inflammatory, anatomic, metabolic and neurological disorders were excluded. Children were assessed with a paediatric FI score questionnaire, and a bowel habit diary both before treatment sessions, after they ended, and after 6 months. A FI quality of life questionnaire was completed before and after treatment for all children.
RESULTS
Full response to the treatment (100% reduction in FI episodes) was significantly observed in 8/14 (57.1%) of children in the case group compared to 2/14 (14.2%) of children in the control group after the ending of treatment sessions (P = 0.005). The baseline mean ± SD of FI episodes per week was 3.7 ± 2.1 among both groups which significantly decreased after the ending of treatment sessions in the case group compared to the control group (1.4 ± 2.1 vs 3 ± 2.7; P = 0.05). Mean ± SD of FI score was significantly reduced in the case group compared to the controls after the ending of treatment sessions (3.9 ± 4.5 vs 8 ± 4.7; P = 0.02) and maintained after 6 months (P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Functional electrical stimulation is a safe, effective, non-invasive, inexpensive, reproducible and easy-to-use modality for treatment of functional non-retentive faecal incintinence in children.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.