Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 44, Issue 9, pp 1324–1327 | Cite as

Chemical colostomy irrigation with glyceryl trinitrate solution

  • Austin O'Bichere
  • Claire Bossom
  • Sameer Gangoli
  • Colin Green
  • Robin K. S. Phillips
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

PURPOSE: Colostomy irrigation may improve patient quality of life, but is time consuming. This study tests the hypothesis that irrigation with glyceryl trinitrate solution, by inducing gastrointestinal smooth muscle relaxation, may accelerate expulsion of stool by passive emptying, thereby reducing irrigation time. METHODS: Fifteen colostomy irrigators (with more than 3 years' experience) performed washout with tap water compared with water containing 0.025 mg/kg glyceryl trinitrate. Fluid inflow time, total washout time, and hemodynamic changes occurring during glyceryl trinitrate irrigation were documented by an independent observer. Subjects recorded episodes of fecal leakage and overall satisfaction on a visual analog scale. Cramps, headaches, and whether or not a stoma bag was used were expressed as a percentage of number of irrigations. Comparison of fluid inflow time, total washout time, leakage, and satisfaction was by Wilcoxon's signed-rank test and headaches, cramps, and stoma bag use was by McNemar's test. Pulse rate (pairedt-test), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (Wilcoxon's test) at 20 and 240 minutes after washout with glyceryl trinitrate solution were compared with baseline. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (9 female), with a mean age of 53 (31–73) years, provided 30 sessions (15 with water and 15 with glyceryl trinitrate). Medians (interquartile ranges) for watervs. glyceryl trinitrate were fluid inflow time 7 (4–10)vs. 4, (3–5;P=0.001); total washout time 40 (30–55)vs. 21, (15–24;P<0.001); leakage 0 (0–1)vs. 0, (0–0;P=0.02), satisfaction 10 (8–10)vs. 10 (9–10;P=0.31). The number (percentage) of stoma bags, cramps, and headaches with watervs. glyceryl trinitrate were 7 (47 percent)vs. 7 (47 percent),P=1; 1 (7 percent)vs. 14 (93 percent),P<0.001; and 0(0 percent)vs. 14 (93 percent),P<0.001, respectively. Changes in pulse (increase) and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (decrease) from baseline were maximal at 20 minutes (P<0.001,P=0.001, andP=0.002, respectively) and had returned to baseline by 240 minutes (P=0.52,P=0.08, andP=1, respectively). CONCLUSION: Glyceryl trinitrate solution significantly reduces colostomy irrigation time compared with the generally recommended tap water. Patients suffer fewer leakages and are highly satisfied, but side effects are potential drawbacks. Other colonoplegic agent solutions should now be evaluated.

Key words

Colostomy irrigation Fecal continence Tap water GTN solution Irrigation time 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Malone PS, Ransley PG, Kiely EM. Preliminary report: the antegrade continence enema. Lancet 1990;336:1217–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Squire R, Kiely EM, Carr B, Ransley PG, Duffy PG. The clinical application of the Malone antegrade colonic enema. J Pediatr Surg 1993;28:1012–5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briel JW, Schouten WR, Vlot EA, Smits S, van Kessel I. Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:802–5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill J, Stott S, MacLennan I. Antegrade enemas for the treatment of severe idiopathic constipation. Br J Surg 1994;81:1490–1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shankar KR, Losty PD, Kenny SE,et al. Functional results following the antegrade continence enema procedure. Br J Surg 1998;85:980–2.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krogh K, Laurberg S. Malone antegrade continence enema for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults. Br J Surg 1998;85:974–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacLeod JH. Colostomy irrigation—a transatlantic controversy. Dis Colon Rectum 1972;15:357–60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terranova O, Sandei F, Rebuffat C, Maruotti R, Bortolozzi E. Irrigation versus natural evacuation of left colostomy: a comparative study of 340 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:31–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams NS, Johnston D. Prospective controlled trial comparing colostomy irrigation with “spontaneousaction” method. BMJ 1980;281:107–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doran J, Hardcastle JD. A controlled trial of colostomy management by natural evacuation, irrigation and foam enema. Br J Surg 1981;68:731–3.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    O'Bichere A, Sibbons P, Green C, Phillips RK. A prospective randomised controlled comparison of the effect of GTN and diltiazem solution on colonic emptying in a porcine model [abstract]. Gut 1999;538(Suppl 1):135.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Bichere A, Sibbons P, Dore C, Green C, Phillips RK. Experimental study of faecal continence and colostomy irrigation. Br J Surg 2000;87:902–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hardcastle JD, Mann CV. Study of large bowel peristalsis. Gut 1968;9:512–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glasser SP. Prospects for therapy of nitrate tolerance. Lancet 1999;353:1545–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Austin O'Bichere
    • 1
  • Claire Bossom
    • 1
  • Sameer Gangoli
    • 1
  • Colin Green
    • 1
  • Robin K. S. Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.From St. Mark's Hospital and Northwick Park Institute for Medical ResearchHarrowUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations