4.2 Article

Slow-transit constipation with concurrent upper gastrointestinal dysmotility and its response to transcutaneous electrical stimulation

Journal

PEDIATRIC SURGERY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 27, Issue 7, Pages 705-711

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-011-2872-x

Keywords

Upper gastrointestinal dysmotility (UGD); Delayed gastric emptying (DGE); Slow small bowel transit (SSBT); Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES); Nuclear transit study (NTS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) speeds up colonic transit in children with slow-transit constipation (STC). This study examined if concurrent upper gastrointestinal dysmotility (UGD) affected response to TES. Radio-nuclear transit studies (NTS) were performed before and after TES treatment of STC as part of a larger randomised controlled trial. UGD was defined as delayed gastric emptying and/or slow small bowel transit. Improvement was defined as increase of a parts per thousand yen1 Geometric Centre (median radiotracer position at each time [small bowel = 1, toilet = 6]). Forty-six subjects completed the trial, 34 had NTS after stimulation (21 M, 8-17 years, mean 11.3 years; symptoms > 9 years). Active stimulation increased transit in > 50% versus only 25% with sham (p = 0.04). Seventeen children also had UGD. In children with STC and either normal upper GI motility (NUGM) and UGD, NTS improved slightly after 1 month (57 vs. 60%; p = 0.9) and more after 2 months (88 vs. 40%; p = 0.07). However, mean transit rate significantly increased with NUGM, but not UGD (5.0 +/- A 0.2: 3.6 +/- A 0.6, p < 0.01). Transcutaneous electrical stimulation was beneficial for STC, with response weakly associated with UGD. As measured by NTS, STC children with NUGM responded slightly more, but with significantly greater increased transit compared to those with UGD. Higher numbers are needed to determine if the difference is important.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available