|

W.pkk.org.pl

Practice Parameters for the Evaluationand Management of Constipation Charles A. Ternent, M.D., Amir L. Bastawrous, M.D., Nancy A. Morin, M.D.,C. Neal Ellis, M.D., Neil H. Hyman, M.D., W. Donald Buie, M.D., and The StandardsPractice Task Force of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons T he American Society of Colon and Rectal methods of care or exclusive of methods of care Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.
patient care by advancing the science, prevention, The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any and management of disorders and diseases of the specific procedure must be made by the physician in colon, rectum, and anus. The Standards Committee is light of all of the circumstances presented by the composed of Society members who are chosen individual patient.
because they have demonstrated expertise in thespecialty of colon and rectal surgery. This Committee was created to lead international efforts in definingquality care for conditions related to the colon, An organized search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by develop- the Cochrane Database of Collected Reviews was ing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best performed through October 2006. Key-word combi- available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive, nations included constipation, obstructed defecation, and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide slow transit, surgery, rectocele, rectal intussuception, information on which decisions can be made, rather pelvic dyssynergia, anismus, paradoxical puborecta- than dictate a specific form of treatment. These lis, and related articles. Directed searches of the guidelines are intended for the use of all practi- embedded references from the primary articles also tioners, health care workers, and patients who desire were accomplished in selected circumstances.
information about the management of the conditionsaddressed by the topics covered in these guidelines.
It should be recognized that these guidelines STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM should not be deemed inclusive of all proper Constipation is a symptom-based disorder of unsat- isfactory defecation that may be associated withinfrequent stools, difficult stool passage, or both Reprints are not available.
The diagnostic criteria for functional constipation Correspondence to: Neil H. Hyman, M.D., Fletcher Allen Health according to the Rome III consensus include two or Care, 111 Colchester Avenue, Fletcher 301, Burlington, Vermont05401.
more of the following symptoms: straining, lumpy or Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50: 2013–2022 hard stools, sensation of incomplete evacuation, sen- sation of anorectal obstruction, and manual maneuvers * The American Society of Colon and Rectal SurgeonsPublished online: 31 July 2007 to facilitate defecation more than 25 percent of the Dis Colon Rectum, December 2007 time, and less than three unassisted defecations per hemochezia, weight loss of more than 10 pounds, week. These symptoms need to be present for at least family history of colon cancer or inflammatory bowel three days per month during the previous three months disease, anemia, change in bowel habits or blood in with symptom onset at least six months before the stool, which suggest the need for more aggres- diagnosis.Loose stools must be rarely present without sive endoscopic and/or radiologic evaluation.An the use of laxatives, and there must be insufficient adequate history may help to identify factors associ- criteria for irritable bowel syndrome The ated with constipation, such as immobility, psychiat- symptoms of chronic constipation frequently overlap ric illness, contributing medications, endocrine with constipation-predominant IBThe Rome III etiologies, such as diabetes and hypothyroidism, diagnostic criteria for IBS include abdominal pain or previous pelvic surgery, or symptoms consistent with discomfort at least three days per month in the constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome previous three months (symptom onset more than 3 (IBS)–The history may suggest the presence of months before diagnosis) with two or more features: obstructed defecation if there is straining with bowel improvement with defecation, onset associated with a movements, incomplete evacuation, sensation of change in frequency of stool and/or change in the obstructed defecation, and the use of manual maneu- form of stoSubclassification into constipation- vers to aid defecation.Nevertheless, symptoms predominant IBS (IBS-C) based on the Rome III alone may not reliably distinguish slow-transit con- criteria also requires the presence of Bristol Stool stipation from anorectal dysfunction.
Form Scale Types 1 and 2.The numerous possible A physical examination, including digital rectal disorders leading to constipation argue for individu- examination, plus the selective use of anoscopy and alized evaluation and management according to the proctosigmoidoscopy may identify the presence of nature, extent, and chronicity of this common fecal impaction, stricture, external or internal rectal prolapse, rectocele, paradoxical or nonrelaxing pubo-rectalis activity, or a rectal mas EVALUATION OF CONSTIPATION 2. The routine use of blood tests, x-ray studies, or endoscopy in patients with constipation withoutalarm symptoms is not indicated. Level of Evidence: 1. A problem-specific history and physical exam- Class V; Grade of Recommendation: D.
ination should be performed in patients with consti- Evidence to support the routine use of blood tests, pation. Level of Evidence: Class IV; Grade of radiography, or endoscopy in the routine evaluation Recommendation: B.
of patients with constipation without alarm features A history and physical examination may identify is lacking.Nevertheless, endoscopic evaluation of the presence of Balarm symptoms and signs, such as the colon is justified for patients who meet criteria for LEVELS OF EVIDENCE AND GRADE RECOMMENDATION Source of Evidence Meta-analysis of multiple well-designed, controlled studies, randomized trials with low-false positive and low-false negative errors (high power) At least one well-designed experimental study; randomized trials with high false-positive or high false-negative errors or both (low power) Well-designed, quasi-experimental studies, such as nonrandomized, controlled, single-group, preoperative– postoperative comparison, cohort, time, or matched case-control series Well-designed, nonexperimental studies, such as comparative and correlational descriptive and case studies Case reports and clinical examples Grade of Recommendation Evidence of Type I or consistent findings from multiple studies of Type II, III, or IV Evidence of Type II, III, or IV and generally consistent findings Evidence of Type II, III, or IV but inconsistent findings Little or no systematic empirical evidence Adapted from Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1992;102(4 Suppl):305S-311S. Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinicalrecommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest 1989;92(2 Suppl):2S-4S.
PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CONSTIPATION screening colonoscopy or those with alarm fea- small-bowel function and functional results after total tures.Furthermore, blood tests may be helpful to abdominal colectomy for colonic inertiaHowever, a rule out hypercalcemia and/or hypothyroidism.
long-term, prospective study did suggest that patients 3. Anorectal physiology and colon transit time with generalized gastrointestinal disorder (GID) have a investigations may help to identify the underlying diminished long-term success rate after colectomy (13 etiology and improve the outcome in patients with percent GID vs. 90 percent no GID)Similarly, a high refractory constipation. Level of Evidence: Class III; postoperative morbidity from recurrent small-bowel Grade of Recommendation: B.
obstructions (70 percent) exists in patients with GID A review of 31 studies of colectomy for constipation found that preoperative physiologic tests, including at NONOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT least anorectal manometry, defecography, and transit study, resulted in a median satisfaction rate of 89percent compared with 80 percent for an incompletephysiologic evaluatioStudies in which slow co- 1. The initial management of symptomatic consti- lonic transit had been documented before colectomy pation is typically dietary modification, including a for refractory constipation also reported an improved high-fiber diet and fluid supplementation. Level of rate of good outcomes (90 vs. 67 percent) Evidence: Class II; Grade of Recommendation: B.
The balloon expulsion test is a simple screening Conservative measures should be attempted before procedure to exclude pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD), surgical intervention for Empiric treat- because symptoms alone may not be enough to ment for constipation with a high-fiber diet seems to distinguish between slow-transit constipation and be an inexpensive and effective therapeutic interven- outlet obstructioA prospective study of balloon tion for addressing constipation-related bowel dys- expulsion in patients with constipation found a spec- The daily intake of 25 g of fiber per day ificity and negative predictive value for excluding PFD has been shown to increase the stool frequency in of 89 and 97 percent, respectively. A nonpathologic patients with chronic constipation. Furthermore, in- balloon expulsion test may avoid the use of other creasing fluid intake to 1.5 to 2 liters per day has been pelvic floor investigations, such as anorectal manome- shown in a randomized, clinical trial of chronic try, surface EMG studies, and defecography constipation to increase stool frequency and decrease Anorectal manometry and surface anal electromyog- the need for laxative in individuals already consuming raphy may help to confirm pelvic floor dyssynergia or a high-fiber Increased physical activity also anismus.The presence of Hirschprung_s disease also seems to be helpful.
can be suggested by anorectal manometry when the 2. The use of polyethylene glycol, tegaserod, and rectoanal inhibitory reflex is absenDefecography is lubiprostone for the management of chronic consti- probably the most useful diagnostic technique for pation is appropriate when dietary management is identifying internal rectal intussuception. In the setting inadequate. Level of Evidence: Class II; Grade of of obstructed defecation, defecography may help to Recommendation: A.
detect structural causes, such as intussuception, rec- Polyethylene glycol (PEG) can be used to promote tocele with retained stool, pelvic dyssynergia, and bowel function in patients with chronic constipation.
extent of rectal emptying. Defecography has been A randomized, clinical trial found that daily therapy shown to have good interobserver agreement for with 17 g of PEG laxative for 14 days resulted in enterocele and rectocele and fair-to-moderate inter- significant improvement of bowel movement fre- observer agreement for intussuception and anismus quency in patients with constipation compared with The measurement of colon transit time using radi- placebo at two weeksProkinetic agents, such as opaque markers in patients with suspected slow-transit the 5-HT4 receptor partial agonist tegaserod maleate, constipation is inexpensive, simple, and safe. There are can be used for treatment of constipation-predominant different methodologies that produce similar IBS. Seven short-term, placebo-controlled studies ful- results,–including the use of radioisotope filled the inclusion criteria for the Cochrane review in markers.The interpretation of colon transit stud- patients with constipation-predominant IBS. Tegaserod ies may be facilitated by knowledge of the status of improved the number of bowel movements and days the pelvic floor in the patient with constipation.
without bowel movements compared with placebo.
Some studies have not found a relationship between Another systematic review found good evidence to Dis Colon Rectum, December 2007 support the use of PEG and tegaserod for the treatment taking laxatives and 174 patients taking placebo. The of constipation.Furthermore, clinical outcome anal- treatment group was noted to have a mean increase ysis of a single-blind, randomized, multicenter trial of of 0.9 stools per week and a mean increase in stool the treatment of idiopathic constipation during three weight of 42 g, but these findings were not different months with PEG or lactulose showed that signifi- than the placebo effect at a four-week duration.
cantly more patients were successfully treated with Furthermore, long-term laxative usage can result in PEG than lactulose (53 vs. 24 percent) with overall the development of cathartic colon.
decreased total management costs Lubiprostone (Amitiza) is an oral bicyclic fatty acid that selectively activates Type 2 chloride channels in the INDICATIONS FOR SURGERY apical membrane of the gastrointestinal epithelium, resulting in increased fluid secretion. Two randomized,double-blind, multicenter, Phase III studies in patientswith chronic idiopathic constipation have shown that 1. Patients with refractory slow-transit constipation the frequency of spontaneous bowel movements may benefit from total abdominal colectomy with (SBMs) was significantly greater in patients receiving ileorectal anastomosis (TAC-IRA). Level of Evidence: lubiprostone 24 mg twice per day than in those receiving Class III; Grade of Recommendation: B.
placebo at each weekly time point throughout both Clinical improvement with total abdominal colectomy four-week studies (P < 0.05). One study found that the with ileorectal anastomosis (TAC-IRA) is reported in 50 mean frequency of SBMs in the lubiprostone group to 100 percent of patients with slow-transit constipation was five per week compared with four per week in the The results of segmental colon resection for placebo group after seven days (P < 0.0001). Signifi- colonic inertia have been disappointing with some small cantly greater improvements occurred with lubipro- series reporting up to a 100 percent failure rate stone than placebo in the degree of straining, stool Similarly, the antegrade colonic enema (ACE) proce- consistency, and constipation severity in both studies dure has been described for treatment of intractable at all time intervals up to four weeks (P < 0.05) constipation. Nevertheless, studies have shown a 33 3. The use of psyllium supplements and lactulose percent conversion rate to TAC-IRA with associated for the treatment of chronic constipation is appropri- stoma complications, wound infection, pain, and ate. Level of Evidence: Class II; Grade of Recommen- psychologic problems in aduTAC-IRA has been reported to have an 8 to 33 percent morbidity from A systematic review of the literature found that recurrent bowel obstruction and can be associated with psyllium and lactulose improved symptoms of consti- diarrhea, incontinence, and recurrence of constipa- pation.A prospective, nonrandomized trial studied Patients should be counseled that the abdominal 224 patients with simple constipation who were treated pain and bloating may persist postoperatively even after with ispaghula husk and 170 patients who were treated normalization of bowel frequency.A retrospective with other laxatives, mostly lactulose, for up to four study of 55 patients after TAC-IRA for colonic inertia with weeks. The husk-treated group produced a higher normal anal manometry identified prolonged postoper- percentage of normal, well-formed stools and fewer ative ileus in 24 percent of cases. Good to excellent hard stools than other laxatives. The husk was found to results were reported in 89 percent of patients and poor be an effective treatment for simple constipation with results in 11 percent. Postoperative stool frequency was 5, better stool consistency and lower adverse events 4, and 3 per day at 1, 2, and 12 months, respectiv compared with lactulose or other laxatives TAC-IRA is recommended for carefully selected 4. The use of common agents, such as milk of patients with severe documented colonic inertia and no magnesia, senna, bisacodyl, and stool softeners, for evidence of severe or correctable pelvic floor dysfunction chronic constipation is reasonable. Level of Evi- after nonoperative treatments have failed.
dence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: C.
Although constipation is generally relieved after TAC- Various laxatives may be used for chronic consti- IRA, studies have shown that, postoperatively, 41 percent pation but there are inconsistent results in the of patients are affected with abdominal pain, 65 percent literature. A meta-analysisfound 11 large, well- with bloating, 29 percent require assistance with bowel controlled, published studies regarding the efficacy movements, 47 percent have some incontinence to gas of laxatives in constipation. There were 375 patients or liquid stooand 46 percent may be affected with PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CONSTIPATION Postoperative quality of life assessment after with laxatives. These results of biofeedback were TAC-IRA showed significantly decreased scores com- sustained at 12 and 24 months along with reductions pared with those of the general Neverthe- in straining, sensations of incomplete evacuations, less, 93 percent of carefully selected patients with TAC blockage, use of enemas and suppositories, and would undergo colectomy again for STC given the abdominal pain. Biofeedback patients reporting the chanceAn ileostomy is an alternative consideration major improvement in symptomatology were able to in many of these patients.
relax the pelvic floor and evacuate a 50-ml balloon at 2. Refractory slow-transit constipation associated 6-month and 12-month follow-up. Therefore, biofeed- with concomitant pelvic outlet obstruction may benefit back seems to be the treatment of choice for PFD from correction of the pelvic floor dysfunction and totalabdominal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis. Levelof Evidence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: B.
SURGICAL MANAGEMENT Studies of colectomy for refractory constipation have OF OBSTRUCTED DEFECATION demonstrated successful outcomes for TAC-IRA in 89 to Surgical Procedures 100 percent after preoperative workup, including colontransit study, defecography, and anorectal physiology Indications for rectocele repair vary but generally investigation.A thorough preoperative workup may include relief of the outlet obstruction symptoms help to exclude patients with constipation-predominant with manual support of the vaginal wall or rectum IBS or normal-transit constipation who will be unlikely to and lack of rectocele emptying on defecography.
benefit from surgical intervention. Furthermore, patients Although controversial, some propose that rectoceles with combined STC and outlet obstruction pathology should be > 4 cm in size to warrant repa may be offered individualized management.– 1. Surgical repair of a rectocele may appropriately STC and associated pelvic floor dyssynergia can be be performed via a transvaginal approach. Level of treated with biofeedback and TAC-IRA, although this Evidence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: C.
group has been shown to have a higher rate of recurrent The traditional technique for transvaginal rectocele defecatory problems and lower satisfaction rates after repair is a nonanatomic, longitudinal plication of the colectSTC with rectal intussuception and/or non- rectovaginal fascia with the repair continuing onto the emptying rectocele/enterocele can be treated with TAC- perineal body in which any injuries to the puborectalis IRA after repair of the anatomic cause of the outlet and perineal muscles also are addressed.This technique is reported to be successful in preventingvaginal bulging in 80 percent and corrects the need for MANAGEMENT OF PELVIC FLOOR digital assistance of defecation in 67 percent of patientsLess favorable clinical results have beenreported with a failure to relieve evacuatory difficultyor lower rectal symptoms in 33 percent of patients.
1. Biofeedback therapy is appropriately recom- Postoperative dyspareunia will occur in 25 percent of mended for treatment of symptomatic pelvic floor patients and at least 10 percent may recur and require dyssynergia. Level of Evidence: Class II; Grade of reoperation; 36 percent will report a problem with fecal Recommendation: B.
incontinence–A prospective study of rectocele The success rates of biofeedback for the treatment repair using xenograft has been reported.Although of PFD are reported to be 35 to 90 percentA significant decreases in rectal emptying difficulties recent, randomized, clinical trial of individuals with were noted, cure of the rectal emptying difficulties chronic severe PFD who had failed management was reported by less than half of the patients at the with 20 g per day of fiber plus enemas or suppos- three-year follow-u itories up to twice per week were randomized into Recently, the concept of an anatomic Bdefect five weekly biofeedback sessions (n = 54) or PEG specific transvaginal rectocele repair has been de- 14.6 to 29.2 g per day plus five weekly sessions in scribed. In this technique, the defect in the rectovagi- constipation prevention. Stool frequency increased in nal fascial defect is closed transversely. During the both groups. However, at six months major improve- short-term, results with this technique seem encour- ment was reported in the biofeedback group in 80 aging with the symptom of constipation improved in percent compared with 22 percent of patients treated more than 80 percent of patients and a low incidence Dis Colon Rectum, December 2007 of recurrent clinical rectocele or postoperative need recommended in combination with a conventional for digital assistance of defecation.A pilot study sphincteroplasty and/or levatorplasty for the man- of 30 randomized patients comparing transvaginal to agement of patients with a symptomatic rectocele transrectal rectocele repair found that symptoms of and incontinence secondary to a sphincter defect.
outlet obstruction were significantly alleviated by both Short-term results of this combined procedure show approaches (93 percent in the vaginal group and 73 an improvement in evacuation and continence in 75 percent in the transrectal group), but the transvaginal percent of patients.The transperineal insertion of a technique had less recurrent rectoceles than the prosthetic mesh has been described with a significant transrectal approach (7 vs. 40 percent)None of the reduction in the need for digital assistance of patients developed postoperative de novo dyspareunia defecation and in the size and amount of barium in this study; however, the sample size was smal retained in rectoceles.Controlled clinical trials of 2. Surgical repair of a rectocele may appropriately this technique need to be performed before the role be performed via a transrectal approach. Level of of this procedure in the management of rectoceles Evidence: Class II; Grade of Recommendation: B.
can be determined.
Although transrectal repairs of rectoceles were 4. The role of transrectal stapled repair of recto- described in the mid 1960s, the suboptimal results celes and rectal intussuception is uncertain. Level of in terms of bowel and sexual function of the trans- Evidence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: D.
vaginal repairs led to the rediscovery and popularity The repair of rectoceles and internal intussucep- of these techniques in the 1980s.Another benefit tion using endoanal staplers has been reported and of transanal repair is the ability to address the continues to be investigated. Initial results with the coexistent anorectal pathology that will be present stapled rectocele repair are encouraging in terms of in up to 80 percent of patients.
evacuatory improvement, but currently there are no The transrectal, anatomic, defect-specific rectocele studies comparing it to other methods, nor are long- repair involves the transverse closure of the rectocele term outcomes kno–There are reports of by an interrupted plication of the muscularis anteri- postoperative bleeding, pain, incontinence, consti- orly as in a Delorme procedure for rectal prolapse.
pation, and rectovaginal fistula using this tech- This method results in a relative foreshortening of the anal canal with diminished internal sphincter func- 5. Surgical repair for rectal intussusception associ- tion and resting anal pressures leading some to ated with severe, intractable symptoms of obstructed conclude that this procedure is contraindicated in defecation may be considered as a last resort. Level patients with combined fecal incontinence and of Evidence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: C.
A study evaluating the Ivalon rectopexy for An alternative is a nonanatomic technique in treatment of rectal intussuception and outlet obstruc- which the defect is repaired longitudinally by tion failed to cure defecatory difficulties. Rectopexy approximating the musculofascial edges of the was recommended for intussuception associated defect. This repair tends to be under tension but with ulcer and bleeding but not for those with does lengthen the anal canal, which may address the obstructed defecation symptoms.The Delorme potential for worsening of fecal incontinence with repair has been reported in 21 patients with intussu- the anatomic repair.
ception and outlet obstruction with improvement of The results with either of these techniques are symptoms in 71 percent and no recurrent intussu- comparable with evacuatory difficulty improved in 47 ception.The Wells rectopexy has been reported to to 84 percent, correction of the need for digital result in defecographic resolution of the intussucep- assistance of defecation in 54 to 100 percent, and tion in 92 percent, but complete symptomatic relief decreased constipation in 48 to 71 percent. Most of was rareA study of rectopexy for treatment of the variations in results seem to be related to internal intussuception resulted in 70 percent resolu- differences in patient selection and criteria for tion of symptoms and healing of all rectal ulcers evaluating the outcomes.
The Ripstein procedure was shown to achieve 3. The role of transperineal techniques or the use of complete resolution of symptoms in 20 percent, prosthetic mesh for rectocele repair is uncertain. Level partial resolution of outlet obstruction symptoms in of Evidence: Class III; Grade of Recommendation: D.
32 percent, and no improvement or worsening Transperineal surgery for rectoceles has been PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CONSTIPATION Based on these case series, surgical management 10. Walsh PV, Peebles-Brown DA, Watkinson G. Colectomy of internal intussusception may be considered for for slow-transit constipation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl those with solitary rectal ulcer and possibly for 1987;69:71 – 5.
associated intractable symptoms of outlet obstruction 11. Mellgren AF, Zetterstrom J, Lopez A. Recocele. In: but only after conservative management has failed.
Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M, eds. Complexanorectal disorders: investigation and management.
London: Springer-Verlag, 2005:446–60.
12. Rantis PC, Vernava AM, Daniel GL, Longo WE. Chronic constipation: is the workup worth the cost? Dis ColonRectum 40:280 – 6 Contributing Members of the ASCRS Standards 13. Rao SS, Ozturk R, Laine L. Clinical utility of diagnostic Committee: Gary Dunn, M.D., Walter Koltun, M.D., tests for constipation in adults: a systematic review. Am Steven Mills, M.D., Terry Phang, M.D., Paul Shellito, J Gastroenterol 2005;100:1605 – 15.
M.D., Scott Steele, M.D., Joe Tjandra, M.D.
14. Pignone MP, Rich M, Berg A, et al. Screening for colo- rectal cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. preventiveservices task force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:132 – 41.
15. Knowles CH, Scott M, Lunniss PJ. Outcome of colectomy for slow transit constipation. Ann Surg 1999;230:627.
1. Brandt LJ, Schoenfeld P, Prather CM, et al. An 16. Wexner SD, Daniel N, Jagelman JG. Colectomy for evidence-based approach to the management of constipation: physiologic investigation is the key to chronic constipation in North America. American Col- success. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:851 – 6.
lege of Gastroenterology Task Force 2005;100:S1 – 4.
17. Beck DE. Simplified balloon expulsion test. Dis Colon 2. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, et al.
Rectum 1992;35:597 – 8.
Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenteroloy 2006;130: 18. Fleshman JW, Dreznik Z, Cohen E, Fry RD, Kodner IJ.
1480 – 91.
Balloon expulsion test facilitates diagnosis of pelvic 3. Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Sandler RS, et al. Epidemi- floor outlet obstruction due to nonrelaxing puborecta- ology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United lis muscle. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1019 – 25.
States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemo- 19. Minguez M, Herreros B, Sanchez V, et al. Predictive graphic features. Am J Gastrol 1999;94:3530 – 40.
value of the balloon expulsion test for excluding the 4. Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ, et al. In: diagnosis of pelvic floor dyssynergia in constipation.
Drossman DA. Functional bowel disorders in Rome Gastroenterology 2004;126:57 – 62.
II: the Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: diagno- 20. Dobben AC, Wiersma TG, Janssen LW, et al. Prospec- sis, pathophysiology, and treatment: a multinational tive assessment of interobserver agreement for defe- consensus. 2nd ed. McLean, VA; Degnon Associates, cography in fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 5. Beck DE. Initial evaluation of constipation. In: 21. Metcalf AM, Phillips SF, Zinsmeister AR, et al. Simpli- Wexner SD, Bartolo DC, eds. Constipation evaluation fied assessment of colonic transit. Gastroenterology and management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1987;92:40 – 7.
22. Arhan P, Devroede G, Jehannin B, et al. Segmental 6. Thornton MJ, Lubowski DZ. An overview. In: Wexner colonic transit time. Dis Colon Rectum 1981;24:625 – 9.
SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M, eds. Complex anorectal 23. Hinton JM, Lennard-Jones JE, Young AC. A new disorders: investigation and management. London: method for studying gut transit times using radiopaque markers. Gut 1969;10:842 – 7 7. Pfeifer J. Managing slow-transit constipation. In: Wexner 24. Chaussade S, Khyari A, Roche H, et al. Determination SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M, eds. Complex anorectal of total and segmental colonic transit time in consti- disorders: investigation and management. London: pated patients. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:1169 – 72.
25. Hutchinson R, Kumar D. Colonic and small-bowel 8. Griffenberg L, Morris M, Atkinson N, Levenback C. The transit studies. In: Wexner SD, Bartolo DC, eds.
effect of dietary fiber on bowel function following Constipation: etiology evaluation and management.
radical hysterectomy: a randomized trial. Gynecol Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd., 1995:52–62.
26. Van der Sijp JR, Kamm MA, Nightingale JM, et al.
9. Preston DM, Lennard-Jones JE. Severe chronic consti- Radioisotope determination of regional colonic transit pation of young women: idiopathic slow-transit consti- in severe constipation: comparison with radiopaque pation. Gut 1986;27:41 – 8.
markers. Gut 1993;34:402 – 8.
Dis Colon Rectum, December 2007 27. McLean RG, Smart RC, Gaston-Parry D, et al. Colon 41. Dettmar PW, Sykes J. A multi-centre, general practice transit scintigraphy in health and constipation using comparison of ispaghula husk with lactulose and other oral iodine-131-cellulose. J Nuc Med 1990;31:985 – 9.
laxatives in the treatment of simple constipation. Curr 28. Krevsky B, Malmud LS, D_Ercole F, Maurer AH, Fisher Med Res Opin 1998;14:227 – 33.
RS. Colon transit scintigraphy. A physiologic approach 42. Jones MP, Talley NJ, Nuyts G, Dubois D. Lack of to the measurement of colon transit in humans.
objective evidence of efficacy of laxatives in chronic Gastroenterology 1986;91:1102 – 12.
constipation. Dig Dis Sci 2002;47:2222 – 30.
29. Schmitt SL, Wexner SD, Bartolo DC. Surgical treatment 43. Pikarsky AJ, Singh JJ, Weiss EG, et al. Long-term of colonic inertia. In: Wexner SD, Zhar AP, Pescatori M, follow-up of patients undergoing colectomy for colonic eds. Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and inertia. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:1898 – 9.
management. London: Springer-Verlag, 2005:153 – 9.
44. Rongen MJ, Van der Hoop AG, Baeten CG. Cecal 30. Mollen RM, Kuijpers HC, Claassen AT. Colectomy for access for antegrade colon enemas in medically refrac- slow-transit constipation: preoperative functional eval- tory slow-transit constipation: a prospective study. Dis uation is important but not a guarantee for a successful Colon Rectum 2001;44:1644 – 9.
outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:577 – 80.
45. Gerharz EW, Vik V, Webb G, et al. The value of the 31. Redmond JM, Smith GW, Barofsky I, et al. Physiological MACE (malone antegrade colonic enema) procedure in tests to predict long-term outcome of total abdominal adult patients. J Am Coll Surg 1997;185:544 – 7.
colectomy for intractable constipation. Am J Gastro- 46. Webster C, Dayton M. Results after colectomy for enterol 1995;90:748 – 53.
colonic inertia: a sixteen-year experience. Am J Surg 32. Ghosh S, Papachrysostomou M, Batool M, Eastwood 2001;182:639 – 44.
MA. Long-term results of sub-total colectomy and 47. Pemberton JH, Rath DM, Ilstrup DM. Evaluation and evidence of noncolonic involvement in patients with surgical treatment of severe chronic constipation. Ann idiopathic slow-transit constipation. Scand J Gastro- Surg 1991;214:403 – 11.
enterol 1996;31:1083 – 91.
48. Christiansen J, Rasmussen OO. Colectomy for severe 33. Voderholzer WA, Schatke W, Muhldorfer BE, et al.
slow-transit constipation in strictly selected patients.
Clinical response to dietary fiber treatment of chronic Scand J Gastroenterol 1996;31:770 – 3.
constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:95 – 8.
49. Lahr SJ, Lahr CJ, Srinivasan A, et al. Operative manage- 34. Anti M, Pignataro G, Armuzzi A, et al. Water supple- ment of severe constipation. Am Surg 1999;65:1117 – 21.
mentation enhances the effect of high-fiber diet on 50. Zenilman ME, Dunnegan DL, Soper NJ, Becker JM.
stool frequency and laxative consumption in adult Successful surgical treatment of idiopathic colonic patients with functional constipation. Hepatogastroen- dysmotility. The role of preoperative evaluation of terology 1998;45:727 – 32.
coloanal motor function. Arch Surg 1989;124:947 – 51.
35. De Schruver AB, Keulemans YC, Peters HP, et al.
51. Nyam DC, Pemberton JH, Ilstrup DM, Rath DM. Long- Effects of regular physical activity on defecation pattern term results of surgery for chronic constipation. Dis in middle aged patients complaining of chronic consti- Colon Rectum 1997;40:273 – 9.
pation. Scand J Gastroentol 2005;40:422 – 9.
52. Thaler K, Dinnewitzer A, Oberwalder M, et al. Quality 36. Cleveland MV, Flavin DP, Ruben RA, Epstein RM, Clark of life after colectomy for colonic inertia. Tech GE. New polyethylene glycol laxative for treatment Coloproctol 2005;9:133 – 7.
of constipation in adults: a randomized, double- 53. FitzHarris GP, Garcia-Aguilar J, Parker SC, et al. Quality blind, placebo controlled study. South Med J of life after subtotal colectomy for slow transit consti- 2001;94:478 – 81.
pation: both quality and quantity count. Dis Colon 37. Evans BW, Clark WK, et al. Tegaserod for the treatment Rectum 2003;46:1720 – 1.
of irritable bowel syndrome. The Cochrane Database 54. Wang J, Luo MH, Qi QH, Dong ZL. Prospective study of Systematic Reviews. 2006;Issue 2.
of biofeedback retraining in patients with chronic 38. Ramkumar D, Rao SS. Efficacy and safety of traditional idiopathic functional constipation. World J Gastroen- medical therapies for chronic constipation: systematic terol 2003;9:2109 – 13.
review. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:936 – 71.
55. Wexner SD, Cheape JD, Jorge JM, et al. A prospective 39. Christie AH, Culbert P, Guest JF. Economic impact of assessment of biofeedback for treatment of paradoxical low dose glycol 3350 plus electrolytes compared with puborectalis contraction. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:145–50.
lactulose in the management of idiopathic constipation.
56. Battaglia E, Serra AM, Buonafede G, et al. Biofeedback Pharmacoeconomics 2002;20:49 – 60.
for dyssynergia. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:90 – 5.
40. McKeage K, Plosker GL, Siddiqui MA. Lubiprostone.
57. Chiaroni G, Whitehead WE, Pezza V, et al. Biofeedback Drug 2006;66:873 – 9.
is superior to laxatives for normal transit constipation PRACTICE PARAMETERS FOR CONSTIPATION due to pelvic floor dyssynergia. Gastroenterology 2006; 75. Khubchandani IT, Clancy JP, Rosen L, Riether RD, 130:657 – 64.
Stasik JJ. Endorectal repair of a rectocele revisited. Br J 58. Mellgren A, Anzen B, Nilsson BY, et al. Results of Surg 1997;8:89 – 91.
rectocele repair. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 76. Ho YH, Ang M, Nyam D, Tan M, Seow-Choen F.
Transanal approach to rectocele may compromise anal 59. Jeffcoate TN. Posterior colpoperineorrhaphy. Am J sphincter pressures. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:354 – 8.
Obstet Gynecol 1959;77:490 – 502.
77. Schouten WR, Gordon PH. Constipation. In: Gordon 60. Kahn MA, Stanton SI. Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects PH, Nivatvongs S. Principles and practice of surgery for on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol the colon, rectum, and anus. St. Louis: Quality Medical 1997;104:882 – 6.
Publishing, 1999:1214 – 8.
61. Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS. Rectocele repair: 78. Ellis CN. Anterior levatoroplasty for the treatment of a four year_s experience. Dis Colon Rectum 1990; 33:684–7.
chronic anterior anal fissures in women with an associ- 62. Yamana T, Takahashi T, Iwadare J. Clinical and ated rectocele. Dis Colon Rectum 2004;47:1170 – 4.
physiologic outcomes after transvaginal rectocele re- 79. Ayabaca SM, Zbar AP, Pescatori M. Anal continence pair. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:661 – 7.
after rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:63 – 9.
63. Kahn MA, Stanton SL. Techniques of rectocele repair 80. Watson SJ, Loder PB, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm and their effects on bowel function. Int Urogynecol J MA, Philips RK. Transperineal repair of symptomatic 1998;9:37 – 47.
rectocele with Marlex mesh: a clinical, physiological, 64. Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Mellgren A, et al. A three-year and radiological assessment of treatment. J Am Coll prospective assessment of rectocele repair using por- Surg 1996;183:257 – 61.
cine xenograft. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:59 – 65.
81. Maurel J, Gignoux M. Surgical treatment of supra- 65. Glavind K, Madsen H. A prospective study of the levator rectoceles. Value of transanal excision with discrete fascial defect rectocele repair. Acta Obstet automatic linear stapler. Ann Chir 1993;47:326 – 30.
Gynecol Scand 2000;79:145 – 7.
82. Petersen S, Hellmich G, Schuster A, Lehmann D, 66. Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L. Outcome after rectovag- Albert W, Ludwig K. Stapled transanal rectal resection inal fascia reattachment for rectocele. Am J Obstet under laparoscopic surveillance for rectocele and Gynecol 1999;181:1360 – 4.
67. Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram MM.
The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect- 83. Corman ML, Carriero A, Hager T, et al. Consensus specific rectocele repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; conference on the stapled transanal rectal resection 181:1353 – 9.
(STARR) for disordered defaecation. Colorectal Dis 68. Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Addison WA, 2006;8:98 – 101.
Bump RC. Anatomic and functional assessment of the 84. Ommer A, Albrecht K, Wenger F, Walz MK. Stapled descrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol transanal rectal resection (STARR): a new option in the 1998;179:1451 – 7.
treatment of obstructive defecation syndrome. Langen- 69. Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, et al. Transanal or becks Arch Surg 2006;391:32–7.
vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, 85. Renzi A, Izzo D, Di Sarno G, Izzo G, Di Martino N.
Stapled transanal rectal resection to treat obstructed 2004;47:1636 – 42.
defecation caused by rectal intussusception and rectocele.
70. Sarles JC, Arnaud A, Selezneff I, Olivier S. Endorectal Int J Colorectal Dis 2006;13:1–7.
repair of rectocele. Int J Colorectal Dis 1989;4:167 – 71.
86. Binda GA, Pescatori M, Romano G. The dark side of 71. Sehapayak S. Transrectal repair of rectocele: an ex- double-stapled transanal rectal resection. Dis Colon tended armamentarium of colorectal surgeons. Dis Rectum 2005;48:1830 – 2.
Colon Rectum 1985;28:411 – 33.
87. Jayne DG, Finan PJ. Stapled transanal rectal resection 72. Khubchandani IT, Hakki AR, Sheets JA, Stasik JJ.
for obstructed defaecation and evidence-based prac- Endorectal repair of rectocele. Dis Colon Rectum 1983; tice. Br J Surg 2005;92:793 – 4.
26:792 – 6.
88. Grassi R, Romano S, Micera O, Fioroni C, Boller B.
73. Pitchford CA. Rectocele: a cause of anorectal patholog- Radiographic findings of post-operative double stapled ical changes in women. Dis Colon Rectum trans anal rectal resection (STARR) in patient with 1967;10:464 – 6.
obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Eur J Radiol 74. Sullivan ES, Leaverton GH, Hardwick CE. Transrectal 2005;53:410 – 6.
perineal repair: an adjunct to improved function after 89. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Stuto A, et al. Stapled anorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1968;11:106 – 14.
transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction: a Dis Colon Rectum, December 2007 prospective, multicenter trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 94. Dodi G, Pietroletti R, Milito G, Binda G, Pescatori M.
47:1285 – 97.
Bleeding, incontinence, pain and constipation after 90. Boccasanta P, Venturi M, Salamina G, Cesana BM, STARR transanal double stapling rectotomy for obstructed Bernasconi F, Roviaro G. New trends in the surgical defecation. Tech Coloproctol 2003;7:148 – 53.
treatment of outlet obstruction: clinical and functional 95. McCue JL, Thompson JP. Rectopexy for internal rectal results of two novel transanal stapled techniques from a intussuception. Br J Surg 1990;77:632 – 4.
randomised controlled trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2004; 96. Berman IR, Harris MS, Rabeler MR. Delorme_s trans- 19:359 – 369. Epub 2004 Mar 13.
rectal excision for internal rectal prolapse. Patient 91. D_Avolio M, Ferrara A, Chimenti C. Transanal rectocele selection, technique, and three-year follow-up. Dis repair using EndoGIA: short-term results of a prospective Colon Rectum 1990;33:573 – 80.
study. Tech Coloproctol 2005;9:108 – 114. Epub 2005 Jul 8.
97. Christiansen J, Zhu BW, Rasmussen OO, et al. Internal 92. Regadas FS, Regadas SM, Rodriguez LV, et al. Transanal rectal intussuception: results of surgical repair. Dis Colon repair of rectocele and full rectal mucosectomy with Rectum 1992;35:1026 – 9.
one circular stapler: a novel surgical technique. Tech 98. Van Tets WF, Kuijpers JH. Internal intussuception-fact Coloproctol 2005;9:63 – 6.
or fancy? Dis Colon Rectum 38:1080 – 3.
93. Pescatori M, Dodi G, Salafia C, Zbar AP. Rectovaginal fistula 99. Fleshman JW, Kodner IJ, Fry RD. Internal intussucep- after double-stapled transanal rectotomy (STARR) for tion of the rectum: a changing perspective. Neth J Surg obstructed defaecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 2005;20:83–5.
1989;41:145 – 8.

Source: http://w.pkk.org.pl/images/Practice_Parameters-Eval_Mgmt_Constipation.pdf