Progress notes or letters to the referring physicians documented statements from the child or a parent that suggested sensory abnormalities in 56 subjects: the child was unable to sense an urge to defecate; and/or did not feel incontinence; had abdominal pain but did not connect those sensations with the need to defecate (Fig. 2).
HAPCs appeared spontaneously or after bisacodyl in all of the patients with a final diagnosis of functional constipation. Thirty of 150 subjects with functional constipation had spontaneous HAPCs, either during fasting (n = 3) or after a meal (n = 27). Only 7 subjects recognized the spontaneous HAPCs and defecated, ending the test session. A total of 23 subjects did not respond to the HAPC, and those subjects were treated with bisacodyl to stimulate a series of HAPCs. There were a range of behaviors associated temporally with the initial HAPC from requests to use the bedside commode or defecation into a diaper, to stoic retentive posturing, to screaming. When queried, subjects with retentive posturing initially denied sensation. Using words that the child and family could understand, the examiner guided each child through the HAPC, explaining how the lines on the computer screen represented the colon pushing stool toward the end of the digestive tract. The clinicians explained that abdominal pain was a signal to defecate and that if the child chose not to relax their bottom, there was pain, but if the child relaxed, there was a bowel movement and a pleasant sensation, a relief. Subjects were instructed to relax their bottoms when they felt the sensation associated with HAPCs on the computer screen. Many subjects first ignored the explanation, but with subsequent HAPCs, each patient who had initially denied an urge to defecate or reported abdominal pain agreed that there was sensation, and asked to defecate on the bedside commode or into the diaper. All of the 56 subjects who initially denied sensation or the urge to defecate recognized the urge to defecate and had successful defecation by the end of the study. Of the 150 patients with functional constipation, 3 failed to acknowledge sensation or defecate despite bisacodyl-stimulated HAPCs. These subjects had bowel movements shortly after the study was completed. At the end of the study, nearly all of the patients acknowledged sensation and the urge to defecate. Nearly all of the parents or caretakers conveyed understanding that the studies were normal.
Colon manometry can be useful not only for pressure measurements but also for psychological observations and biofeedback. Performing colon manometries requires a time commitment on the part of the physician and the patient/family. The time can be used not only to learn about the physiology of the gastrointestinal tract but also to observe interactions between the patient and the caregiver. The time spent with the patient and family during the test sessions facilitated the clinician learning important brain–gut interactions that would be missed by a clinician whose agenda is exclusively a review of colon contractions. Manometry contains the objective answers that are most important when there is enteric neuromuscular disease; however, behavioral observation provides the important answers about coping skills and family dynamics when the manometry is normal but the child is suffering.
This study demonstrated again that the majority of children referred for colon manometry have normal studies (3,4). Children who were diagnosed as having functional constipation met symptom-based Rome criteria (12), and during the study may have demonstrated retentive posturing, grimacing at the time of HAPCs, or denial of sensation of the urge to defecate. These patients often had successful defecation by the end of the study.
Most children with functional constipation responded to education about their condition and stool softeners to achieve painless defecation (13). Patients with functional constipation are referred for colon manometry after failing therapies (4). Children with functional constipation may deny the urge to defecate and/or sensation of incontinence, or their parent may state that the child cannot feel. Parents may misinterpret retentive posturing as straining to push stool out, and not holding stool in (3). During colon manometry, the clinician used HAPCs as an opportunity to teach the caregivers and child that the HAPC was normal, and that what the child was feeling was the normal sensation associated with the need to defecate. By completion of the study, nearly all of these children were convinced that they had normal, healthy colons and could achieve proper toilet hygiene if they relaxed their bottom at the time of the HAPCs. Colon manometry can be a powerful tool for biofeedback and reassurance. It is an opportunity for the clinician to show the patient and family that the child is healthy, that the condition is not dangerous, and that they can get better if they are ready to make an effort to do so.
Nonverbal children cannot discuss their sensory experience; however, constipated infants were referred to discern the presence or absence of colonic neuromuscular disorders. If their studies were normal, we placed them into the functional constipation category. We did not attempt biofeedback in nonverbal children.
Colon manometry is an opportunity to observe the relationships and behaviors between the caregivers and the child in a stressful setting. It can also be an opportunity to witness and document psychopathology in either the caregiver or the patient. Physicians spent 2 to 3 consecutive hours with the subject and caregivers. One of the goals of the encounter was to establish a rapport with child and family. The clinicians hoped that rapport was achieved by listening intently and asking detailed questions. At the conclusion of testing, physicians gave the child and parents explanations of the diagnosis and management. The physician also offered contact information including e-mail addresses for continued availability at the time of discharge. The physician asked each participant if there were any questions at the end of the session and typically there were no questions. Rarely, after the physician left the room, the caregiver voiced a complaint to the nurse that they were not told what was wrong with the child. In such a case, the study was an opportunity for the clinician to see that there is a barrier in the parent to understanding that the child is normal. The same amount of time was spent with each family, so for those families that left feeling unsatisfied, there was another reason for their reaction. For satisfied families, the manometry served as reassurance and an opportunity for biofeedback, which was invaluable.
Children may fail therapy for a variety of reasons including parents unable or unwilling to provide consistent support, a child's communication problems, which interfere with the education necessary to understand the condition, nonadherence to treatment, or intellectual or psychiatric issues preventing proper toilet hygiene. Parents can teach and model the proper skills needed to achieve successful toilet training, but at some point, the child's willingness to exercise control in the behaviors is necessary. One possibility is that self-efficacy is a key to children becoming competent in toilet behaviors.
Self-efficacy is a belief system that determines how people feel regarding their abilities to accomplish certain tasks and acts as a motivator for certain behaviors. Having a sense of self-efficacy enables increased accomplishment, whereas those with poor self-efficacy have lower aspirations and more adverse outcomes. An effective way of achieving a higher sense of self-efficacy is by mastering tasks and experiences. Similarly, self-efficacy is enhanced through witnessed experiences. Watching someone else succeed teaches a child that he/she too can succeed. It is possible that children who fail toilet training develop a poor sense of self-efficacy, which contributes to the development of constipation (14).
There are stages of psychosocial development for every healthy human being (15). In each stage, the individual is faced with challenges that must be confronted and mastered. Each stage builds on the previous one (although it is not necessary to master one before moving on the next). In the toddler years, a child gains control of his or her surroundings and masters a variety of personal skills. These skills include feeding themselves, walking, talking, and fine motor development, as well as toilet training. Erikson described gaining control of bowels as a violent time. At this time children learn what Erikson (15) called “autonomous will” and this stage involves muscular maturation, verbalization, and discrimination of various internal and external sensory cues. While acquiring these skills, children learn self-esteem and autonomy. This developmental stage involves reconciling conflicting ideas; one of holding on and one of letting go. If toilet training is not achieved or the process involves negative experiences including being shamed into the process, shame and doubt will persist. Shame, according to Erikson, is an infantile emotion and leads to secretive behavior, with the child attempting to hide inappropriate activities. Therefore, children who failed toilet learning may deny sensations of the urge to defecate and have persistent problems with constipation and proper toilet hygiene, all the while having shame and embarrassment (15).
If the child denies that there is a problem, it is no longer part of his or her reality. It is possible that the child dissociates the sensations before defecation so that HAPCs are perceived as abdominal pain and not as a call to defecate. It has been surmised by others that there is reduced sensation because of rectal dilation that occurs as a result of longstanding constipation and persistent stool in the rectal vault (9–11); however, van den Berg et al (16) demonstrated that increased rectal compliance and rectal distention were not associated with treatment failure for functional constipation. Additionally, the change in rectal compliance after 1 year was not significant in patients with reported hyposensitivity.
Those children who deny sensation, when we tell them we know they can feel it, often change their minds and agree with the examiner. The colon manometry therefore allows for an opportunity for biofeedback, an opportunity to help the child make a connection between the HAPC and the urge to defecate, regardless of the reasons for misinterpretation of normal HAPCs.
There are a number of flaws with this retrospective study. We relied on the information obtained in charts and had no access to the patients at this time. There was no formal questioning regarding sensation of the urge to defecate, so we may have underestimated the number of children who misreport. We did not test the anal wink to test sensation but relied on child or parent report. Finally, there was no follow-up of these patients. Future studies may prospectively examine the role of development and self-efficacy on the expression of functional constipation.
1. van den Berg MM, Benninga MA, Di Lorenzo C. Epidemiology of childhood constipation: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol
2. Fleisher DR. Diagnosis and treatment of disorders of defecation in children. Pediatr Ann
3. Gertken JT, Cocjin J, Pehlivanov N, et al. Comorbidities associated with constipation in children referred for colon manometry may mask functional diagnoses. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
4. DiLorenzo C, Flores AF, Reddy SN, et al. Use of colonic manometry to differentiate causes of intractable constipation in children. J Pediatr
5. DiLorenzo C, Hillemeier C, Hyman PE, et al. Manometry studies in children: minimum standards for procedures. Neurogastroenterol Motil
6. Van den Berg MM, Hogan M, Caniano DA, et al. Colonic manometry as predictor of cecostomy success in children with defecation disorders. J Pediatr Surg
7. Villarreal J, Sood M, Zangen T, et al. Colon diversion for intractable constipation in children: colon manometry guides clinical decisions. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
8. Scott SM, van den Berg MM, Benninga MA. Rectal sensorimotor dysfunction in constipation. Best Pract Res Clnic Gastreoenterol
9. Meunier P, Marechal JM, de Beaujeu MJ. Rectoanal pressures and rectal sensitivity studies in chronic childhood constipation. Gastroenterology
10. Loening Baucke VA. Sensitivity of the sigmoid colon and rectum in children treated for chronic constipation. J Pediatr Gastreoenterol Nutr
11. Loening-Baucke VA. Chronic constipation in children. Gastroenterology
12. Drossman DA, ed. Rome III: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
. 3rd ed. McLean, VA: Degnon Associates; 2006.
13. Baker SS, Liptak GS, Colletti RB, et al. Constipation in infants and children: evaluation and treatment. A medical position statement of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr
14. Bandura A. Self Efficacy in V. S Ramachaudran Encyclopedia of Human Behavior
. Vol 4. New York: Academic Press; 1994:71–81.
15. Erikson E. Identity. Youth and Crisis
. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 1968:107–11.
16. van den Berg MM, Bongers MEJ, Voskuijl WP, et al. No role for increased rectal compliance in pediatric functional constipation. Gastroenterology
Keywords:Copyright 2013 by ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN
biofeedback; gastrointestinal motility; pediatrics