Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2023
Transanal irrigation is a better choice for bowel dysfunction in adults with Spina bifida: A randomised controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Brochard Charlène, Jezequel Magali, Blanchard-Dauphin Anne, Kerdraon Jacques, Perrouin-Verbe Brigitte, Leroi Anne-Marie, Reymann Jean Michel, Peyronnet Benoît, Morçet Jeff, Siproudhis Laurent
Аннотация
AIM: To compare transanal irrigation with conservative bowel management for the treatment of bowel dysfunction in Spina bifida (SB) patients.
METHODS: Patients with SB and bowel dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either transanal irrigation or conservative bowel management. The effectiveness of the treatment was defined as a decrease of 4 points in the neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) score at week 10. Data on incontinence (Cleveland scores; Jorge-Wexner [JW]) and constipation (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott Symptom Constipation Score [KESS]) were recorded at 10 and 24 weeks after inclusion. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients were randomised: 16 patients to conservative bowel management and 18 patients to transanal irrigation. A total of 19/31 (61%) patients improved at week 10, 13 (76%) in the transanal irrigation group versus six (43%) in the conservative group (p = 0.056). In the irrigation group, the decrease in NBD score was -6.9 (-9.9 to -4.02) versus -1.9 (-6.5 to -2.8) in the conservative group (p = 0.049 in univariate and p = 0.004 in multivariate analysis). The NBD, Cleveland (JW and KESS) and Rosenberg scores were significantly lower in the transanal irrigation group than in the conservative bowel management group at week 10.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre study in adult patients with SB suggests that transanal irrigation may be more effective than conservative bowel management.
METHODS: Patients with SB and bowel dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either transanal irrigation or conservative bowel management. The effectiveness of the treatment was defined as a decrease of 4 points in the neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) score at week 10. Data on incontinence (Cleveland scores; Jorge-Wexner [JW]) and constipation (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott Symptom Constipation Score [KESS]) were recorded at 10 and 24 weeks after inclusion. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
RESULTS: A total of 34 patients were randomised: 16 patients to conservative bowel management and 18 patients to transanal irrigation. A total of 19/31 (61%) patients improved at week 10, 13 (76%) in the transanal irrigation group versus six (43%) in the conservative group (p = 0.056). In the irrigation group, the decrease in NBD score was -6.9 (-9.9 to -4.02) versus -1.9 (-6.5 to -2.8) in the conservative group (p = 0.049 in univariate and p = 0.004 in multivariate analysis). The NBD, Cleveland (JW and KESS) and Rosenberg scores were significantly lower in the transanal irrigation group than in the conservative bowel management group at week 10.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre study in adult patients with SB suggests that transanal irrigation may be more effective than conservative bowel management.