Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2025-07.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Clinical and Physiologic Study of Encopresis.
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Korean Soc Coloproctol > Volume 16(3); 2000 > Article
Original Article
Clinical and Physiologic Study of Encopresis.
Chung, Soon Sup , Kwon, Jae Bong
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 2000;16(3):171-176

1Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Kon-kuk University, Chung Ju, Korea.
2Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, Kon-kuk University, Chung Ju, Korea.
prev next
  • 1,321 Views
  • 18 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

Abstract

The pathophysiology of pediatric encopresis has been incomprehensible. The current study was designed to assess its clinical and physiologic findings. Moreover, outcome of treatment was evaluated.
METHODS
The clinical and functional findings of 18 patients (13 boys, 5 girls) were analyzed, retrospectively. Physiologic studies for cooperative child included anal manometry (n=12), cinedefecography (n=3), and PNTML (pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, n=1). For exclusion of the organic cause, barium contrast study was carried out in all case. Patients were categorized by leading symptom as constipation or incontinence. Physiologic findings and outcome of treatment were analyzed based on the categorized groups. Biofeedback therapy by using newly-developed anal sphincter control system (KONTINENCE CLINICAL(TM)) in my institute, was underwent a mean 4.1 (range, 2~12) sessions. The outcome was analyzed in the period of 5.4 (range, 1~33) months follow-up.
RESULTS
Patients were categorized as having constipation (group I, n=12) or incontinence (group II, n=6) group. In the manometric parameters, there were no statistical differences between the values of the mean resting pressure (RP), the maximum RP, and the maximum voluntary contraction between group I and II. In the cinedefecography, 3 of group I patients revealed as having the pelvic floor dyssynergia. The findings of PNTML were not specific in group II (n=1). Regarding to the therapeutic outcome, 8 of 10 patients were cured or improved.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no differences in the resting and squeeze profiles of manometric parameters between two groups. However, pelvic floor dyssynergia was identified in the cinedefecography of constipated group. Conventional and biofeedback treatment for encopretic children provides acceptable outcome.

Related articles
Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
© Korean Society of Coloproctology.
TOP