4.4 Article

Influence of abuse history on gastric sensorimotor function in functional dyspepsia

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 33-41

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2008.01178.x

关键词

barostat; functional dyspepsia; gastric emptying; pathophysiology; sexual; physical abuse history; symptom severity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders have elevated rates of sexual or physical abuse, which may be associated with altered rectal sensorimotor function in irritable bowel syndrome. The aim was to study the association between abuse history and gastric sensorimotor function in functional dyspepsia (FD). We studied gastric sensorimotor function with barostat (sensitivity, compliance and accommodation) and gastric emptying test in 233 consecutive FD patients from a tertiary care centre (162 women, mean age 41.6 +/- 0.9). Patients filled out self-report questionnaires on history of sexual and physical abuse during childhood or adulthood. Eighty-four patients (out of 198, 42.4%) reported an overall history of abuse [sexual and physical in respectively 30.0% (60/200) and 20.3% (42/207)]. FD patients reporting general as well as severe childhood sexual abuse have significantly lower discomfort thresholds during gastric distension [respectively 10.5 +/- 0.4 vs 7.5 +/- 1.0 mmHg above minimal distending pressure (MDP), P = 0.014 and 10.5 +/- 0.4 vs 6.6 +/- 1.2 mmHg above MDP, P = 0.007]. The corresponding intra-balloon volume was also significantly lower (respectively 579 +/- 21 vs 422 +/- 59 mL, P = 0.013 and 579 +/- 19 vs 423 +/- 79 mL, P = 0.033). Gastric accommodation was significantly more pronounced in patients reporting rape during adulthood (91 +/- 12 vs 130 +/- 40 mL, P = 0.016). Abuse history was not associated with differences in gastric emptying. A history of abuse is associated with alterations in gastric sensorimotor function in FD. Particularly sexual abuse, rather than physical abuse, may influence gastric sensitivity and motor function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据