Advertisement

Indian Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 385–387 | Cite as

Delayed or not delayed? That is the question in Indian children with constipation

  • Shaman Rajindrajith
  • Niranga M. Devanarayana
  • Marc A. Benninga
Editorial
  • 210 Downloads

Childhood constipation is a global public health problem [1]. A recent meta-analysis of the epidemiological data shows that 9% of children across the world is suffering from constipation [2]. It has deleterious effects on health-related quality of life of affected children reducing their physical, emotional, social, and school functions [3]. Families with a constipated child were reported to be socially isolated and frustrated [4]. Furthermore, the cost of care for constipation has risen by 121% in the USA indicating a significant burden on the healthcare system [5].

Prevalence of childhood constipation is dramatically increasing in many countries across Asia. In pre-school children in Hong Kong, functional constipation (FC) was reported to be 29.3%, whereas, in school children in Taiwan, the prevalence rate was as high as 32%, which was the highest prevalence rate in the world [6, 7]. Many other countries such as Sri Lanka (15.4%), Saudi Arabia (22.5%), and China (12.2%) also reported high prevalence rates of FC [8, 9, 10]. These figures indicate that Asia is a hot bed for childhood constipation compared to the western countries.

In this backdrop, this issue of the journal timely publishes an article by Shava and colleagues reporting on colonic transit times (CTT) and stool characteristics of children with FC and healthy controls in India [11]. Not surprisingly, stool frequency and consistency significantly differ between Indian children with FC compared to their healthy normative sample. In line with these findings, a significantly prolonged CTT was found in the group of children with FC as compared to healthy controls. The vast majority (92%) of the constipated children, however, had a CTT less than the 95th percentile of normal healthy children. Lastly, the authors reported that the stool frequency of healthy Indian children was higher compared to those living in the Western countries.

The etiology of FC remains elusive and thought to be multifactorial. Psychological stressors altering the gut-brain axis [12], poor toilet training leading to stool withholding [13], dyssynergic defecation [14], poor dietary habits [15], and slow colonic motility have been suggested as potential mechanisms for childhood constipation. Three types of colonic motility patterns can be identified in children with constipation using either radiopaque markers or radio-nuclear transit studies; these include normal transit constipation, slow transit constipation (STC), and outlet obstruction. Out of these, functional outlet obstruction is by far the commonest (70%). STC is seen only in about 20% of children with FC. They are usually older children, especially girls with intractable symptoms [16].

There are three methods to assess CTT in children. These include the use of radiopaque markers, radio-nuclear transit studies, and the wireless motility capsule. Several methods have been used in both children and adults when it comes to using radiopaque markers to assess CTT, including the single capsule technique and the multiple capsules techniques. Patients are requested to swallow a number of radiopaque markers and depending on the method used, undergo one or a number of abdominal radiographs to locate the positions of the markers [17].

Several studies have been performed in the Western countries to measure CTT in children with FC. Although there are differences in the methods used, almost all studies reported significantly longer CTT in constipated children than the transit found in the current study. In children with slow transit constipation, the reported CTT is even over 100 h, whereas others reported a mean CTT in children with FC at least twice longer than the current study [18, 19, 20, 21, 22].

Several reasons are likely to explain the significant difference in CTT between Indian and Western children with constipation. Current standard protocols to measure CTT do not recommend to clean the colon or empty the rectum before performing a transit study [18, 23, 24]. To date, almost all studies that assessed CTT in pediatric patients with FC did not clean the bowel before performing the transit study. In contrast, in the current study, newly diagnosed children with FC were given polyethylene glycol (PEG) 1 week before the transit study, or PEG was stopped during the transit study, which likely has shortened the CTT in these children. Secondly, the method used to measure CTT was different from all former protocols used in earlier studies in children with FC, which makes it difficult to compare CTT in different patient samples. However, the authors have used a protocol validated in Indian adults who have different stool frequency than that of the Western population [25]; this protocol, however, has not yet been validated in the Indian children. These factors clearly need to be addressed in future studies measuring CTT in children with FC.

In accordance with the defecation pattern in constipated children in the Western world, the current study shows that the majority of Indian children included in this study fulfilled the Rome IV criteria for FC. More than 90% of the patients had infrequent large painful bowel movements accompanied by fecal incontinence, probably caused by stool withholding behavior [26, 27, 28, 29]. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that this clinical picture does not align with the relatively short CTT in the current study. In a previous study, using a prospective diary to report clinical symptoms, a significant correlation was reported between low stool frequency, fecal incontinence, and the presence of a fecal mass in the rectum with prolonged CTT (median CTT was 58 h) [27]. Again, cleaning the colon before assessing CTT might be the reason for the discrepancy in CTT between this study and earlier studies.

The authors also report that the defecation frequency in healthy Indian children is more frequent as compared to children living in Western countries. However, before drawing firm conclusions, some issues have to be addressed. The total number of healthy children included in this study was only 39. In addition, the age difference in their sample was too diverse and lastly children were living in an urban area of Lucknow. Several factors related to normal defecation are however unclear from this study. It is well known that younger children defecate more frequently than the older children. Information in this study is lacking with respect to the age distribution of this sample. Moreover, an analysis of the diet has not been performed, which makes it difficult to conclude that the fiber intake between Indian children and Western children is different contributing to the variation in defecation frequency. Lastly, children living in the region of Lucknow may not be representative for whole India and the developing world.

As authors have observed, larger population-based studies performed in rural and urban  areas, in developed and developing countries, evaluating defecation patterns in different populations (healthy and children with FC) and in different age groups, in combination with a careful analysis of the diet, and using the same methods to evaluate colonic transit are needed to address these important questions raised by this study. Based on the findings of this study, it is however too early to change the Rome criteria for constipated children living in developing countries.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

SR, NMD, and MAB declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The authors are solely responsible for the data and the content of the paper. In no way, the Honorary Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, or the printer/publishers are responsible for the results/ findings and content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Rajindrajith S, Devanarayana NM, Perera BJC, Benninga MA. Childhood constipation as an emerging public health problem. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:6864–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koppen IJN, Vrisman MH, Saps M, et al. Prevalence of functional defecation disorders in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr. 2018;198:121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rajindrajith S, Devanarayaana NM, Weerasooriya L, Hathagoda W, Benninga MA. Quality of life and somatic symptoms in children with constipation: a school-based study. J Pediatr. 2013;163:1069–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaugars AD, Silverman A, Kinservik M, et al. Families’ perspectives on the effect of constipation and fecal incontinence on quality of life. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51:747–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choung RS, Shah ND, Chitkara D, et al. Direct medical costs of constipation from childhood to early adulthood; a population based birth cohort study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011;52:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ip KS, Lee WT, Chan JS, Young BW. A community-based study of the prevalence of constipation in young children and the role of dietary fibre. Hong Kong Med J. 2005;11:431–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wu TC, Chan LK, Pan WH, et al. Constipation in Taiwan elementary school students: a nationwide survey. J Chin Med Assoc. 2011;74:57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rajindrajith S, Devanarayana NM, Adhikari C, Pannala W, Benninga MA. Constipation in children: an epidemiological study in Sri Lanka using Rome III criteria. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97:43–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AlGhamdi M, Alfetni A. Prevalence and factors associated with functional constipation among children attending to well baby clinic in Aladel primary health care center in Makkah al-Mukarraman 2016, cross sectional. Int J Adv Res. 2017;5:1175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tam YH, Li AM, So HK, et al. Socioenvironmental factors associated with constipation in Hong Kong children and Rome III criteria. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012;55:56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shava U, Yachha SK, Srivastava A, Poddar U, Sarma MS. Assessment of stool frequency and colonic transit time in Indian healthy children and functional constipation: a difference from the West. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2018; 37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-018-0902-5.
  12. 12.
    Devanarayana NM, Rajindrajith S. Association between constipation and stressful life events in a cohort of Sri Lankan children and adolescents. J Trop Pediatr. 2010;56:144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Borowitz SM, Cox DJ, Tam A, Ritterband LM, Sutphen JL, Penberthy JK. Precipitants of constipation during early childhood. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16:213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camilleri M, Ford AC, Mawe GM, et al. Chronic constipation. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2017;3:17095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee WT, Ip KS, Chan JS, Lui NW, Young BW. Increase prevalence of constipation in pre-school children is attributable to under-consumption of plant foods: a community based study. J Pediatr Child Health. 2008;44:170–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hutson JM, Chase JW, Clarke MC, et al. Slow transit constipation in children: our experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2009;25:403–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benninga MA, Tabbers MM, van Rijn RR. How to use a plain abdominal radiograph in children with functional defecation disorders. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2016;101:187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arhan P, Devroede G, Jehannin B, et al. Segmental colonic transit time. Dis Colon Rectum. 1981;24:625–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gutierrez C, Marco A, Nogales A, Tebar R. Total and segmental colonic transit time and anorectal manometry in children with chronic constipation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2002;35:31–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wegener S, Shankar KR, Turnock RR, Lamont GL, Baillie CT. Colonic transit time- what is normal? J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39:166–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Velde SV, Notebaert A, Meersschaut V, Herregods N, van Winckel M, van Bieryliet S. Colon transit time in healthy children and adolescents. Int J Color Dis. 2013;28:1721–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benninga MA, Buller HA, Tytgat GN, Akkermans LM, Bossuyt PM, Taminiau JA. Colonic transit time in constipated children: does pediatric slow transit constipation exist? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1996;23:241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Metcalf AM, Phillips SF, Zinsmeister AR, MacCarty RL, Beart RW, Wolff BG. Simplified assessment of segmental colonic transit. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cook BJ, Lim E, Cook D, et al. Radionuclear transit to assess sites of delay in large bowel transit in children with chronic idiopathic constipation. J Pediatr Surg. 2005;40:478–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ghoshal UC, Gupta D, Kumar A, Misra A. Colonic transit study by radio-opaque markers to investigate constipation: validation of a new protocol for a population with rapid gut transit. Natl Med J India. 2007;20:225–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benninga MA, Buller HA, Staalmman CR, et al. Defecation disorders in children, colonic transit time versus the Barr-score. Eur J Pediatr. 1995;154:277–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Lorijn F, van Wijk MP, Reitsma JB, van Ginkel R, Taminiau JA, Benninga MA. Prognosis of constipation: clinical factors and colonic transit time. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:723–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mugie SM, Korczowski B, Bodi P, et al. Prucalopride is no more effective than placebo for children with functional constipation. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:1285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van der Plus RN, Benninga MA, Staalman CR, et al. Megarectum in constipation. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83:52–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Society of Gastroenterology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of KelaniyaRagamaSri Lanka
  2. 2.Department of Physiology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of KelaniyaRagamaSri Lanka
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Academic Medical CenterEmma Children HospitalAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations