Prevalence of Defecation Disorders and their Symptoms is Comparable in Children and Young Adults:Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose: We aimed to compare the prevalence rates and associated symptoms of constipation and fecal incontinence in children and young adults and evaluate how these patient groups cope with these disorders. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in which 212 children (8-17 years) and 149 young adults (18-29 years) from the general Dutch population completed a questionnaire about defecation disorders. Results: Constipation occurred in 15.6% of children and 22.8% of young adults (p=0.55), while the prevalence of fecal incontinence was comparable between groups (7%, p=0.91). The symptoms associated with constipation occurred as often in children as in young adults, while most fecal incontinence symptoms occurred more often in young adults. Approximately 43% of children had constipation for more than 5 years, while 26% of young adults experienced constipation since childhood. Only 27% of constipated children and 21% of constipated young adults received treatment (mostly laxatives). For fecal incontinence, 13% of children and 36% of young adults received treatment (mostly antidiarrheal medications or incontinence pads). Conclusion: In contrast to the general belief, the prevalence of defecation disorders and associated symptoms seem to be comparable in children and young adults. Only a few people with defecation disorders receive adequate treatment

Using laxatives and/or enemas to accelerate the diagnosis in children presenting with acute abdominal pain:a randomised controlled trial study protocol

Introduction: Many children with acute abdominal pain and suspicion of appendicitis are diagnosed with constipation. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to differentiate between acute constipation and acute appendicitis because of similar symptoms and lack of diagnostic criteria. Consequently, constipation is often missed despite repeated consultations at the emergency department. We hypothesise that the diagnostic process can be improved and adequate treatment accelerated by supporting faecal evacuation in children with acute abdominal pain. Methods and analysis: An unblinded randomised controlled trial including children aged between 5 years and 18 years with acute abdominal pain and suspicion of acute appendicitis. Children who do not have a definitive diagnosis after the first consultation and who need to return for a second consultation will be randomised. The intervention group will receive laxatives and enemas, while the control group will receive no medication. If, after the second consultation, still no diagnosis is established, and a third consultation is needed, then the intervention group will receive only laxatives, and the control group will again not receive medication. The primary outcome will be the differences in abdominal pain scores obtained with FACES Pain Rating Scale and the visual analogue scale at first, second and possibly third consultation. The secondary outcome will be the number of consultations needed to reach final diagnosis. Ethics and dissemination: Laxatives and enemas have proven to be safe and effective treatments for constipation in children. Adverse events are therefore not expected, however, should they occur, then the child concerned shall be properly followed and treated until the event is over. The local Medical Research Ethics Committee approved of this study and waived the otherwise mandatory insurance for human test subjects. Trial registration numbers: Pre-results: CCMO NL44710.042.12 andEudraCT 2013-000498-56

The problem of defecation disorders in children is underestimated and easily goes unrecognized:A cross-sectional study

We aimed to study constipation and fecal incontinence in terms of prevalence, recognizing the disorders, help-seeking behavior, and associated symptoms. In this cross-sectional study, 240 children (8 to 18 years) from the general Dutch population completed a questionnaire about defecation disorders. After exclusions for anorectal/pelvic surgery or comorbidities, we analyzed 212 children. The prevalence of constipation was 15.6%; in a quarter of the cases, it co-occurred with fecal incontinence. We found 3% fecal incontinence without constipation. Even though children with a defecation disorder rated their bowel habits worse compared to children without defecation disorders (P < 0.001), 46% constipated children and 67% fecally incontinent children rated their bowel habits as good or very good. Moreover, 21 to 50% of children with a defecation disorder did not mention their symptoms to anybody. Interestingly, most constipated children had "normal" stool frequencies (64%) and consistencies (49%). Conclusion: The prevalence of constipation and fecal incontinence is quite high in children. Stool frequency and consistency is normal in half the constipated children, which may complicate the recognition of constipation. Finally, a considerable number of children does not recognize their disorders as constituting a problem and does not seek help, which leads to an underestimation of these disorders. What is Known: • Constipation and fecal incontinence are common in children, but their prevalence rates may be underestimated due to a variety of reasons. • Diagnosing these disorders remains challenging owing to the variety of symptoms and co-existence with other diseases. What is New: • The prevalence of constipation and fecal incontinence in children is high. • Many children do not recognize their defecation disorders as constituting a problem and do not seek help, which leads to an underestimation of the problem of these disorders

The influence of underweight and obesity on the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis in children

The impact of lower body mass index (BMI) on appendicitis has never been addressed. We investigated whether different BMIs affect the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis in children. The correlation between BMI and diagnosis accuracy and treatment quality was evaluated by retrospective analysis of 457 children diagnosed with appendicitis. Based on BMI percentiles, patients were classified as either underweight (n = 36), normal weight (n = 346), overweight (n = 59), or obese (n = 16). Diagnosis accuracy was measured by negative appendectomy rate, perforation rate, and number of consultations. Treatment quality was measured by complication rate and length of hospital stay. Underweight patients had the highest negative appendectomy (OR 3.00, P = 0.008) and complication (OR 2.75, P = 0.041) rate. BMI did not influence perforation rate or number of consultations. Both underweight and obese patients stayed in the hospital longer than normal weight patients (regression coefficient 2.34, P = 0.001, and regression coefficient 9.40, P <0.001, respectively). Furthermore, in obese patients, the hospital stay after open appendectomy was prolonged compared to laparoscopic appendectomy (P <0.001). No such differences were observed in patients with lower BMI. Underweight children are misdiagnosed more often, stay in hospital longer, and experience more postoperative complications than children of normal weight. Obesity is associated with longer hospital stays. Laparoscopic appendectomy might shorten the length of hospital stays in these patients. We conclude that in addition to obesity, underweight should also be considered a risk factor for children with appendicitis

Using laxatives and/or enemas to accelerate the diagnosis in children presenting with acute abdominal pain: a randomised controlled trial study protocol

Introduction: Many children with acute abdominal pain and suspicion of appendicitis are diagnosed with constipation. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to differentiate between acute constipation and acute appendicitis because of similar symptoms and lack of diagnostic criteria. Consequently, constipation is often missed despite repeated consultations at the emergency department. We hypothesise that the diagnostic process can be improved and adequate treatment accelerated by supporting faecal evacuation in children with acute abdominal pain. Methods and analysis: An unblinded randomised controlled trial including children aged between 5 years and 18 years with acute abdominal pain and suspicion of acute appendicitis. Children who do not have a definitive diagnosis after the first consultation and who need to return for a second consultation will be randomised. The intervention group will receive laxatives and enemas, while the control group will receive no medication. If, after the second consultation, still no diagnosis is established, and a third consultation is needed, then the intervention group will receive only laxatives, and the control group will again not receive medication. The primary outcome will be the differences in abdominal pain scores obtained with FACES Pain Rating Scale and the visual analogue scale at first, second and possibly third consultation. The secondary outcome will be the number of consultations needed to reach final diagnosis. Ethics and dissemination: Laxatives and enemas have proven to be safe and effective treatments for constipation in children. Adverse events are therefore not expected, however, should they occur, then the child concerned shall be properly followed and treated until the event is over. The local Medical Research Ethics Committee approved of this study and waived the otherwise mandatory insurance for human test subjects. Trial registration numbers: Pre-results: CCMO NL44710.042.12 andEudraCT 2013-000498-56

Reproducibility, feasibility and validity of the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence questionnaires

<p><b>Objectives:</b> Current questionnaires on defecation disorders are often brief and fail to include questions considering causative factors. Furthermore, adult and pediatric questionnaires differ, which makes it impossible to monitor defecation disorders during the transition from childhood to adulthood. With these points in mind, we developed the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence (DeFeC) questionnaire and its pediatric equivalent, the P-DeFeC. The aim of this paper is to introduce the questionnaires and to assess their feasibility, reproducibility and validity.</p> <p><b>Materials and methods:</b> Various Rome IV criteria and scoring tools for constipation and fecal incontinence were incorporated, resulting in nine categories. Feasibility and reproducibility were assessed by performing a test–retest survey in 100 adult participants. Concurrent validity was assessed in 27 patients and 18 healthy volunteers by comparing questionnaire-based diagnoses of constipation and fecal incontinence to final diagnoses based on anorectal function tests.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> There were no remarks on the understandability of any questions. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient of all main questions ranged from 0.26 to 1.00, with an average of 0.57. All but one category showed moderate agreement or higher. The sensitivity of the questionnaire-based diagnosis of constipation was 75%; specificity was 100%. The sensitivity of the questionnaire-based diagnosis of fecal incontinence was 77%; specificity was 94%.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Overall reproducibility of the Groningen DeFeC questionnaire is acceptable and its validity is good. This makes it a feasible screening tool for defecation disorders and, equally important, with these questionnaires defecation disorders can now be monitored during the transition from childhood to adulthood.</p

Reproducibility, feasibility and validity of the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence questionnaires

Objectives: Current questionnaires on defecation disorders are often brief and fail to include questions considering causative factors. Furthermore, adult and pediatric questionnaires differ, which makes it impossible to monitor defecation disorders during the transition from childhood to adulthood. With these points in mind, we developed the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence (DeFeC) questionnaire and its pediatric equivalent, the P-DeFeC. The aim of this paper is to introduce the questionnaires and to assess their feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Materials and methods: Various Rome IV criteria and scoring tools for constipation and fecal incontinence were incorporated, resulting in nine categories. Feasibility and reproducibility were assessed by performing a test–retest survey in 100 adult participants. Concurrent validity was assessed in 27 patients and 18 healthy volunteers by comparing questionnaire-based diagnoses of constipation and fecal incontinence to final diagnoses based on anorectal function tests. Results: There were no remarks on the understandability of any questions. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient of all main questions ranged from 0.26 to 1.00, with an average of 0.57. All but one category showed moderate agreement or higher. The sensitivity of the questionnaire-based diagnosis of constipation was 75%; specificity was 100%. The sensitivity of the questionnaire-based diagnosis of fecal incontinence was 77%; specificity was 94%. Conclusions: Overall reproducibility of the Groningen DeFeC questionnaire is acceptable and its validity is good. This makes it a feasible screening tool for defecation disorders and, equally important, with these questionnaires defecation disorders can now be monitored during the transition from childhood to adulthood