AIM: To investigate coping mechanisms, constipation symptoms and anorectal physiology in 80 constipated subjects and 18 controls.METHODS: Constipation was diagnosed by Rome Ⅱ criteria.Coping ability and anxiety/depre...AIM: To investigate coping mechanisms, constipation symptoms and anorectal physiology in 80 constipated subjects and 18 controls.METHODS: Constipation was diagnosed by Rome Ⅱ criteria.Coping ability and anxiety/depression were assessed by validated questionnaires. Transit time and balloon distension test were performed.RESULTS: 34.5% patients were classified as slow transit type of constipation. The total colonic transit time (56 h vs 10 h, P＜0.0001) and rectal sensation including urge sensation (79 mL vs 63 mL, P = 0.019) and maximum tolerable volume (110 mL vs95 mL, P = 0.03) differed in patients and controls. Constipated subjects had significantly higher anxiety and depression scores and lower SF-36 scores in all categories. They also demonstrated higher scores of'monitoring' coping strategy (14+6 vs9+3, P = 0.001),which correlated with the rectal distension sensation (P = 0.005), urge sensation (P=0.002), and maximum tolerable volume (P = 0.035). The less use of blunting strategy predicted slow transit constipation in both univariate (P = 0.01) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Defective or ineffective use of coping strategies may be an important etiology in functional constipation and subsequently reflected in abnormal anorectal physiology.展开更多
文摘AIM: To investigate coping mechanisms, constipation symptoms and anorectal physiology in 80 constipated subjects and 18 controls.METHODS: Constipation was diagnosed by Rome Ⅱ criteria.Coping ability and anxiety/depression were assessed by validated questionnaires. Transit time and balloon distension test were performed.RESULTS: 34.5% patients were classified as slow transit type of constipation. The total colonic transit time (56 h vs 10 h, P＜0.0001) and rectal sensation including urge sensation (79 mL vs 63 mL, P = 0.019) and maximum tolerable volume (110 mL vs95 mL, P = 0.03) differed in patients and controls. Constipated subjects had significantly higher anxiety and depression scores and lower SF-36 scores in all categories. They also demonstrated higher scores of'monitoring' coping strategy (14+6 vs9+3, P = 0.001),which correlated with the rectal distension sensation (P = 0.005), urge sensation (P=0.002), and maximum tolerable volume (P = 0.035). The less use of blunting strategy predicted slow transit constipation in both univariate (P = 0.01) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Defective or ineffective use of coping strategies may be an important etiology in functional constipation and subsequently reflected in abnormal anorectal physiology.
