Introduction
Soiling in children is a major problem, which has a serious impact on the child’s social and psychological life. Soiling is present in 3% of the pediatric population and constipation counts for 25% of pediatric referrals 1
The Pediatric Surgery Department at Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital started a colorectal unit to treat various colorectal problems, including the longstanding persisting problem of incontinence. There is no consensus on the exact management of incontinence, especially in our region with limited resources. The solution to incontinence lies in implementing a bowel management program (BMP) following the principles adopted by experienced centers 2
Our aim was to create a universal approach to treating incontinence with the least resources that can be readily used as the primary management strategy by pediatricians or pediatric surgeons, with referral of refractory cases to a tertiary center. These refractory cases can undergo further investigations and assessment for a redo surgery.
Indications for the management of postoperative incontinence have changed over the years. Even experts have modified the indication for operative intervention 3
Participants and methods
A prospective study was conducted for children older than 4 years of age who were suffering from stool incontinence and were referred to the Cairo University Specialized Pediatric Hospital outpatient clinic. The children were assessed by proper history taking, clinical examination, and investigations to differentiate between true incontinence and pseudoincontinence (constipation with overflow). They were divided into two groups: group A and group B. Group A included true incontinence cases that had an organic problem resulting from anorectal surgery, especially anorectal malformations (ARM) or Hirschsprung’s disease (HD), or had an underlying neurological impairment such as meningomyelocele. Group B included idiopathic constipation cases that had functional problems.
Data on history included detailed family history, dietary habits, behavioral history, and surgical history. All cases received a psychiatric evaluation and were deemed normal. Examination of the abdomen included digital rectal examination; in case of fecal impaction, enemas were prescribed. Stool analysis was done to detect parasitic infestations. Radiological studies were limited to abdominal radiographic and contrast studies. Informed consent was taken and a short survey was conducted to evaluate the degree of incontinence at first session at the clinic. The Wexner score 4 Table 1 ).
Table 1: The Wexner incontinence scoring system
4 The BMP was implemented in both groups in the form of proper diet control, drugs, and bowel habit alteration. The program was fashioned according to age, type, severity, and response over a period of sessions for each case. The printed BMP had three instruction points for the parents, which were thoroughly explained to them. The points addressed were habit modifications, diet, and drugs.
Strict bowel habituation schedule was enforced. The parents were instructed to encourage the children to try evacuating twice daily, for at least half an hour, without punishment. The children were instructed to try half an hour after each meal to use gastrocolonic reflex 5
The diet was modified to include more fibers in the form of vegetables and fruits. Processed foods such as chocolates, chips, and sweets had to be avoided. Liquids and juices were allowed in plenty.
The following drugs were given: antiparasitic drugs in case of positive stool analysis for parasitic infestation, lactulose to soften the stool and if a fissure is present, and lignocaine gel. In case of fecal impaction, enema was given for 3 days for disimpaction in both groups. Laxatives were used more cautiously in true incontinence cases in combination with the enemas. In cases with hypermotility, Smecta was used as the constipating agent. Bisacodyl suppositories were used in advanced cases once daily.
The BMP results were followed up in sessions after 1, 3, and 6 months at the outpatient clinic and a full clinical assessment was performed at each visit and the results were assessed. The BMP protocol was assessed at each of the three sessions and modified according to response to treatment. Success of treatment was measured at 50–70% improvement in incontinence score.
Results
There were 75 cases during the period 2013–2014. All patients complained of soiling and were divided after clinical and radiological assessment into two groups: group A for true incontinence and group B for pseudoincontinence (Fig. 1 ). They were further subgrouped according to pathology (Table 2 ). Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and Fisher’s exact test for significance. A P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Fig. 1: Flow diagram for the implementation of bowel management program.
Table 2: Cases divided into 2 groups and subgroups according to original pathology
Group A (true incontinence cases) consisted of 32 children (25 boys and 7 girls; ratio 3.57 : 1). Group B (pseudoincontinence cases) consisted of 43 children (30 boys and 13 girls; ratio 2.3 : 1). The duration of symptoms averaged 68.9 months in group A and 19.5 months in group B. The mean age in group A was 92 months and that in group B was 86.6 months.
In group A, anorectal malformation cases of high type had undergone a posterior sagittal anorectoplasty at our institution or elsewhere, whereas the low-type cases had undergone anoplasty. The five patients with Hirschsprung’s disease had undergone a complete transanal endorectal pull-through, one laparoscopic assisted and one combined abdominal and transanal pull-through. The neurological cases had meningomyelocele with associated urinary incontinence. Three cases had been operated upon elsewhere for rectal prolapse through unclear procedures. One case had undergone a pelvic neuroblastoma resection (with suspected iatrogenic anal sphincter injury) and one case had received multiple surgeries for treatment of infective perineal fistula.
Group B cases were divided into patients with positive stool analysis for parasitic ova [n =11 (26%)] and negative cases; the latter were diagnosed as having idiopathic constipation with soiling. These patients had not complained of constipation and soiling before the start of the events.
The applied BMP is tabulated in Table 3 .
Table 3: Applied bowel management program (n =number of cases)
The results according to improvement are given in Tables 4 and 5 .
Table 4: Degree of improvement in incontinence score after applying the bowel management program
Table 5: Duration needed to improve as assessed at follow-up
Discussion
There has been no definitive treatment for idiopathic constipation as no procedure or management has proven superior to others with regard to outcome. However, the BMP has shown superior results 6 7
Parent counseling and education until normal bowel motion is important, which can take up to years 1 8 9,10
The trigger that causes a vicious circle of constipation and soiling, as pelvic floor spasm, can be modulated by behavioral therapy 5,11
Some authors have reported a 20% incidence of fecal soiling without constipation. These patients might have an underlying psychological problem but none was proven, and further studies are needed to investigate the matter 12,13
The initiation of soiling in group A started after closure of colostomy in high ARM patients and was postoperative in the HD and low ARM cases. The HD cases were considered as having enterocolitis whenever there was any soiling. The neurologic group had been symptomatic almost since birth, with associated urinary incontinence. In group B, incontinence was related to the time of weaning, toilet training initiation, and its mismanagement.
Contrast enemas were performed at the time of primary evaluation to assess colonic motility (postevacuation films) and rectal reservoir and direct to the exact diet protocol 14 1,14,15
Diet alteration to a high fiber and more natural diet proved successful in our series. Processed foods such as sweets, chips, and chocolates seem to defer patients from eating the healthier options and thus start constipating. Other series have reported giving a constipating diet 6,16 n =4). We tried as much as possible to provide a more natural diet rather than a constipating one.
The frequency of parasitic infections in group B was compared with other studies of chronic constipation patients which report an incidence of 5.4% 17 18 19
Laxatives were limited to lactulose for its ease of application as a syrup, appeal to children for its sweetness, and easy availability, although no randomized controlled studies have shown any superior efficiency to any other laxative 20 21
Smecta was given with caution as described by other authors 2 22 n =14) that did not respond to the first line of treatment 23 5,22,23
Trials of effective scoring systems such as the Baylor continence score in pediatrics 24 25
Many factors have affected the outcome in both groups. In group A there was no significant improvement beyond 50% in 26 cases, which is far behind the levels of more experienced centers 6 1 26 27 28
In group B, there was significant improvement in more than 50% of the cases (P <0.0005), both with and without any parasitic infestations. There was significant improvement when the BMP was applied to all cases of incontinence, with success rate above 70% (P =0.007). If the normal population carries a risk of 25% for constipation and of 3% for soiling then the colorectal population would have higher rates as these children miss normal toilet training and suffer painful surgical and postsurgical procedures that worsen their fear of defecation 5
Conclusion
Fecal incontinence in children is a major problem in the field of pediatric colorectal surgery for which multidisciplinary work is needed to achieve acceptable results. A conservative BMP provides excellent results for both types of incontinence. Refractory incontinence cases should be investigated for rare causes of constipation and more advanced investigations such as manometry and surgeries are to be studied.
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Rintala RJ, Pakarinen M. Other disorders of the anus and rectum, anorectal function. Pediatric surgery 2006; 2:1590–1602.
2. Bischoff A, Tovilla M. A practical approach to the management of pediatric fecal incontinence. Semin Pediatr Surg 2010; 19:154–159.
3. Levitt MA, Peña A. Caty MG. Chapter 17: Complications of Surgery in Anorectal Malformations. Complications in Pediatric Surgery. Informa Healthcare; 2009. pp301–315.
4. Smith LE, Jorge JMN, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36:77–97.
5. Sood MR, Hyman PE. Stringer MD, Oldham KT, Mouriquand PDE. Gastrointestinal motility disorders. Pediatric Surgery and Urology: Long-Term Outcomes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006 416–428.
6. Bischoff A, Levitt Ma, Bauer C, Jackson L, Holder M, Peña A. Treatment of fecal incontinence with a comprehensive bowel management program. J Pediatr Surg 2009; 44:1278–1284.
7. Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S. Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130:1510–1518.
8. Van Dijk M, Benninga MA, Grootenhuis MA, Nieuwenhuizen A-MO, Last BF. Chronic childhood constipation: a review of the literature and the introduction of a protocolized behavioral intervention program. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 67:63–77.
9. Lowery SP, Srour JW, Whitehead WE, Schuster MM. Habit training as treatment of encopresis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1985; 4:397–401.
10. Baker SS, Liptak GS, Colletti RB, Croffie JM, Di Lorenzo C, Ector W, Nurko S. 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 1999; 29:612–626.
11. Brazzelli M, Griffiths PV, Cody JD, Tappin D. Behavioural and cognitive interventions with or without other treatments for the management of faecal incontinence in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011; 12. Art. No.: CD002240. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002240.pub4.
12. Griffiths DM. The physiology of continence: idiopathic fecal constipation and soiling. Semin Pediatr Surg 2002; 11:67–74.
13. Di Lorenzo C, Benninga Ma. Pathophysiology of pediatric fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 2004; 126:S33–S40.
14. Levitt M, Peña A. Update on pediatric faecal incontinence. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2009; 19:1–9.
15. Van Ginkel R, Benninga MA, Blommaart PJE, van der Plas RN, Boeckxstaens GE, Büller HA, Taminiau JA. Lack of benefit of laxatives as adjunctive therapy for functional nonretentive fecal soiling in children. J Pediatr 2000; 137:808–813.
16. Griffin SJ, Parkinson EJ, Malone PSJ. Bowel management for paediatric patients with faecal incontinence. J Pediatr Urol 2008; 4:387–392.
17. Kasirga E, Akil İ, Yilmaz Ö, Polat M, Gözmen S, Eqeman A. Evaluation of voiding dysfunctions in children with chronic functional constipation. Turk J Pediatr 2006; 48:340–343.
18. Mahfouz AAR, El-Morshedy H, Farghaly A, Khalil A. Ecological determinants of intestinal parasitic infections among pre-school children in an urban squatter settlement of Egypt. J Trop Pediatr 1997; 43:341–344.
19. Dutta AK, Phadke MA, Bagade AC, Joshi V, Gazder A, Biswas TK, et al.. A randomised multicentre study to compare the safety and efficacy of albendazole and metronidazole in the treatment of giardiasis in children. Indian J Pediatr 1994; 61:689–693.
20. Price KJ, Elliot TM. Stimulant laxatives for constipation and soiling in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001; 3. Art. No.: CD002040. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002040.
21. Rangel SJ, de Blaauw I. Advances in pediatric colorectal surgical techniques. Semin Pediatr Surg 2010; 19:86–95.
22. Levitt MA, Peña A. chapter 37 - FECAL INCONTINENCE AND CONSTIPATION, In Ashcraft's Pediatric Surgery (Fifth edition), edited by George Whitfield Holcomb, J. Patrick Murphy, Associate Editor and Daniel J. Ostlie, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 2010, Pages 491-501, ISBN 9781416061274,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-6127-4.00037-9 .
23. Elawad MA, Sullivan PB. Management of constipation in children with disabilities. Dev Med Child Neurol 2001; 43:829–832.
24. Brandt ML, Daigneau C, Graviss EA, Naik-Mathuria B, Fitch ME, Washburn KK. Validation of the Baylor Continence Scale in children with anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg 2007; 42:1015–1021.
25. Baxter NN, Rothenberger Da, Lowry AC. Measuring fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46:1591–1605.
26. Peña A, Levitt MA. Grosfeld JL, O’Neill JA, Fonkalsrud EW, Coran AG. Anorectal Malformations. Pediatric Surgery. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier. 1566–15892006.
27. Reisner SH, Sivan Y, Nitzan M, Merlob P. Determination of anterior displacement of the anus in newborn infants and children. Pediatr 1984; 73:216–217.
28. Aworanti OM, Mcdowell DT, Martin IM, Hung J, Quinn F. Comparative review of functional outcomes post surgery for Hirschsprung’s disease utilizing the paediatric incontinence and constipation scoring system. Pediatr Surg Int 2012; 28:1071–1078.
