Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:23:18.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Manometric Biofeedback for Idiopathic Faecal Retention in Childhood: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Peter Griffiths  and
Harriet Livingstone
Peter Griffiths
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Stirling
Harriet Livingstone
Affiliation:
Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biofeedback by means of an anorectal probe or balloon linked to a manometric apparatus can be an effective treatment for childhood faecal retention associated with inappropriate external anal sphincter coordination (obstipation). We report an alternative biofeedback approach in a child with long-standing obstipation. Sphincter tone was detected by digitization instead of manometrically and information on the state of the muscle relayed orally, the child's mother acting as trainer and working at home. Five years of dependency on purgatives for bowel evacuation was reversed in three weeks of this regime. Carer-mediated biofeedback by digitization may prove a low-technology alternative to manometric methods where suitable equipment is unavailable.

Type
Clinical Section
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 187 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bodian, M. & Carter, C.O. (1963). A family study of Hirschsprung's disease. Annals of Human Genetics, 26, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boon, F.L. & Singh, N.N. (1991). A model for the treatment of encopresis. Behaviour Modification, 15, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerulli, M.A., Nikoomanesh, P., & Schuster, M.M. (1979). Progress in biofeedback conditioning for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology, 76, 742–746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapoy, P.R. & Ament, M.E. (1982). Biofeedback therapy in the management of anal incontinence. Journal of Pediatrics, 100, 336–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enck, P. (1993). Biofeedback in disordered defecation. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 38, 1953–1960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, B.T., Nikoomanesh, P., & Schuster, M.M. (1974). Operant conditioning of rectosphincteric responses in the treatment of fecal incontinence. New England Journal of Medicine, 290, 646–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, P. & Burns, J. (in press). Educational and behavioural approaches to the treatment of childhood encopresis. Nursing Times.Google Scholar
Kawimbe, B.M., Papachrystostomou, M., Binnie, N.R., Clare, N., & Smith, A.N. (1991). Outlet obstruction constipation (anismus) managed by biofeedback. Gut, 32, 1175–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, M.D. (1983). Encopresis. In Levine, M.D., Crocker, A.C., Carey, W.B. and Gross, R.T., Developmental behavioral pediatrics (pp. 586–595). Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
MacLeod, J.H. (1983). Biofeedback in the management of partial anal incontinence. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 26, 244–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olness, K., MacParland, F.A., & Piper, J. (1980). Biofeedback: A new modality in the management of children with fecal soiling. Journal of Pediatrics, 96, 505–509.Google ScholarPubMed
Preston, D.M. & Lennard-Jones, J.E. (1985). Anismus in chronic constipation. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 30, 413–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, A., Chandra, R., Gabel, S., & Chiponis, D. (1987). Evaluation of biofeedback in childhood encopresis. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 6, 554–558.Google ScholarPubMed
Wald, A. & Handen, B.J. (1987). Behavioral aspects of disorders of defecation and fecal continence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.