Gastric electrical stimulation improves symptoms and need for supplemental nutrition in children with severe nausea and vomiting: A ten-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is a promising therapy for children with severe nausea and vomiting, but information on long-term outcomes is limited. We sought to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of GES and to describe patient benefit and satisfaction. METHODS: Using a prospective registry, we identified patients aged <21 years treated with GES at our institution between 2009 and 2019. Encounters were selected at baseline prior to GES and at follow-up at 1 month, 12 months, and the most recent visit. We compared symptoms, route of nutrition, and medication usage at baseline to follow-up timepoints. Factors associated with improvement were evaluated. We recorded complications and need for battery replacement. We contacted families to administer the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory (GCBI) and a parent satisfaction questionnaire. KEY RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (68.2% female, median age 15.8 years) completed a trial of temporary GES due to severe nausea and vomiting. Seventy-seven (90.6%) had a positive response and underwent permanent stimulator placement. Use of tube feeding or parenteral nutrition (PN) decreased from 72.7% at baseline to 29.9% at the most recent follow-up (p < 0.001). Higher baseline vomiting severity was associated with the ability to stop supplemental nutrition by 1 month (p < 0.05). Fourteen patients (18.2%) had complications, primarily due to stimulator-associated discomfort, and 29 (37.7%) required battery replacement. Median GCBI was +52.1, indicating health-related benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Children with severe nausea and vomiting treated with GES experienced significant and durable improvement in symptom severity and their ability to tolerate oral nutrition.

The not-so-rare absent RAIR: Internal anal sphincter achalasia in a review of 1072 children with constipation undergoing high-resolution anorectal manometry.

BACKGROUND: Our objective is to describe the prevalence of patients with internal anal sphincter achalasia (IASA) without Hirschsprung disease (HD) among children undergoing anorectal manometry (ARM) and their clinical characteristics. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of high-resolution ARM studies performed at our institution and identified patients with an absent rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR). Clinical presentation, medical history, treatment outcomes, and results of ARM and other diagnostic tests were collected. We compared data between IASA patients, HD patients, and a matched control group of patients with functional constipation (FC). KEY RESULTS: We reviewed 1,072 ARMs and identified 109 patients with an absent RAIR, of whom 28 were diagnosed with IASA. Compared to patients with FC, patients with IASA had an earlier onset of symptoms and were more likely to have abnormal contrast enema studies. Compared to patients with HD, patients with IASA were more likely to have had a normal timing of meconium passage, a later onset of symptoms, and were diagnosed at an older age. At the latest follow-up, the majority of patients diagnosed with IASA (54%) were only using oral laxatives. Over half of patients with IASA had been treated with anal sphincter botulinum toxin injection, and 55% reported a positive response. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Patients diagnosed with IASA may represent a more severe patient population compared to patients with FC, but have a later onset of symptoms compared to patients with HD. They may require different treatments for their constipation and deserve further study.

Comparison of antegrade continence enema treatment and sacral nerve stimulation for children with severe functional constipation and fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: To compare antegrade continence enema (ACE) treatment and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in children with intractable functional constipation (FC) and fecal incontinence (FI). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of children 6-18 years old with FC and FI treated with either ACE or SNS at our institution. We recorded symptoms at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and their most recent visit after starting treatment. We compared improvement in FI, bowel movement (BM) frequency, abdominal pain, laxative use, and complications. Patients were contacted to evaluate perceived benefit using the Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory. KEY RESULTS: We included 23 patients treated with ACE (52% female, median age 10 years) and 19 patients treated with SNS (74% female, median age 10 years). Improvement in FI was greater with SNS than ACE at 12 months (92.9% vs 57.1%, P = .03) and 24 months (100% vs 57.1%, P = .02). Improvement in BM frequency was greater with ACE, and children were more likely to discontinue laxatives at all follow-up time points (all P < .05). Improvement in abdominal pain was greater with ACE at the most recent visit (P < .05). Rate of complications requiring surgery was similar between groups (26.3% vs 21.7%). Benefit was reported in 83.3% and 100% of ACE and SNS groups, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Although both ACE and SNS can lead to durable improvement in children with FC and FI, SNS appears more effective for FI and ACE more effective in improving BM frequency and abdominal pain and in discontinuation of laxatives.

A comparison of Malone appendicostomy and cecostomy for antegrade access as adjuncts to a bowel management program for patients with functional constipation or fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Appendicostomy and cecostomy are two approaches for antegrade enema access for children with severe constipation or fecal incontinence as adjuncts to a mechanical bowel management program. Each technique is associated with a unique set of complications. The purpose of our study was to report the rates of various complications associated with antegrade enema access techniques to help guide which option a clinician offers to their patients. METHODS: We reviewed all patients in our Center who received an appendicostomy or cecostomy from 2014 to 2017 who were participants in our bowel management program. RESULTS: 204 patients underwent an antegrade access procedure (150 appendicostomies and 54 cecostomies). Skin-level leakage (3% vs. 22%) and wound infections (7% vs. 28%) occurred less frequently in patients with appendicostomy compared to cecostomy. Nineteen (13%) appendicostomies required revision for stenosis, 4 (3%) for mucosal prolapse, and 1 (1%) for leakage. The rates of stenosis (33 vs. 12%) and wound infection (13 vs. 6%) were higher in patients who received a neoappendicostomy compared to an in situ appendicostomy. Intervention was needed in 19 (35%) cecostomy patients, 15 (28%) for an inability to flush or a dislodged tube, and 5 for major complications including intraperitoneal spillage in 4 (7%) and 1 (2%) for a tube misplaced in the ileum, all occurring in patients with a percutaneously placed cecostomy. One appendicostomy (1%) patient required laparoscopic revision after the appendicostomy detached from the skin. CONCLUSION: Patients had a lower rate of minor and major complications after appendicostomy compared to cecostomy. The unique complication profile of each technique should be considered for patients needing these procedures as an adjunct to their care for constipation or fecal incontinence. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective comparative study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Surgical management of functional constipation: An intermediate report of a new approach using a laparoscopic sigmoid resection combined with malone appendicostomy.

INTRODUCTION: We previously reported our surgical technique for functional constipation for patients who have failed medical management using a novel collaborative approach with gastroenterology input, pre-operative contrast enema, colonic manometry, and laxative protocol combined with a laparoscopic colonic resection with Malone appendicostomy. Now we report our intermediate outcomes. METHODS: Patients who failed bowel management program for functional constipation were reviewed from 3/2014-2/2017. Patients with Hirschsprung disease, anorectal malformation, tethered cord, spina bifida, Trisomy 21, cerebral palsy, mitochondrial disease, or prior colon resection were excluded. RESULTS: Of 31 patients (14 females; median age 12years, follow-up 10.3months) with functional constipation and failed medical management, 26 (84%) had preoperative colonic manometry which, in addition to the contrast enema, guided laparoscopic colon resection. Ten patients (32.3%) are clean with no flushes (1 takes no laxatives, 8 are on low dose laxatives only, and 1 patient was clean on laxatives but chose to switch back to flushes). Of the 21 patients that remain on antegrade flushes, 20 (95.2%) are clean, and one patient (4.8%) continues to soil. We define clean as no soiling and no abnormal stool burden on x-ray. Laxative trials are planned for all patients on an antegrade flush regimen. CONCLUSION: Our intermediate results show that laparoscopic colon resection with Malone appendicostomy allows the majority of patients to be clean on antegrade flushes, and some to be on no or minimal laxatives. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.