Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neurogenic Bowel in the Pediatric Patient—Management from Childhood to Adulthood

  • Neurogenic Bladder (C Powell, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The current literature on neurogenic bowel will be addressed with a specific focus on spina bifida population. Topics will include bowel management, clinical care pathways, variation in care, quantification of dysfunction, and quality of life outcomes.

Recent Findings

There have been several recent studies that retrospectively review the outcomes from a national spina bifida registry as well as ongoing work regarding the development and validation of quality of life (QOL) instruments for the neurogenic populations. These studies have highlighted the significance of any fecal incontinence and its negative effect on QOL.

Summary

Although there has been a recent increase in publications regarding this neurogenic population, a significant amount of further work is required. Through multi-institutional collaboration and standardization of care pathways, there can be significant advances in the care of these patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Johnston AW, Wiener JS, Todd Purves J. Pediatric neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction: will my child ever be out of diapers? Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(5):838–67.

  2. Cameron AP, et al. The severity of bowel dysfunction in patients with neurogenic bladder. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Radojicic Z, et al. The impact of bowel management on the quality of life in children with spina bifida with overactive bladder and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15(5):457–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Radojicic Z, et al. The influence of bowel management on the frequency of urinary infections in spina bifida patients. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(4):318.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Radojicic Z, et al. Impact of bowel management in alleviating symptoms of urinary incontinence in patients with spina bifida associated with overactive bladder and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia. BJU Int. 2019;123(1):118–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eid AA, et al. Prospective evaluation of the management of bowel dysfunction in children with neuropathic lower urinary tract dysfunction and its effect on bladder dynamics. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54(4):805–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. King SK, et al. Retrograde continence enema in children with spina bifida: not as effective as first thought. J Paediatr Child Health. 2017;53(4):386–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Axelrod CH, Saps M. The role of fiber in the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders in children. Nutrients. 2018;10(11):1650.

  9. Lever E, et al. Systematic review: the effect of prunes on gastrointestinal function. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40(7):750–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lever E, et al. The effect of prunes on stool output, gut transit time and gastrointestinal microbiota: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):165–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Santos-Jasso KA, et al. Effectiveness of senna vs polyethylene glycol as laxative therapy in children with constipation related to anorectal malformation. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(1):84–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Levitt M, Pena A. Update on pediatric faecal incontinence. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2009;19(1):1–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bray L, Sanders C. An evidence-based review of the use of transanal irrigation in children and young people with neurogenic bowel. Spinal Cord. 2013;51(2):88–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pires JM, et al. Assessment of neurogenic bowel dysfunction impact after spinal cord injury using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54(6):873–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vu Minh Arnell M, et al. Adults with myelomeningocele: an interview study about life situation and bladder and bowel management. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9(3):267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. • Wiener JS, et al. Bowel management and continence in adults with spina bifida: results from the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry 2009–15. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2017;10(3–4):335–43 Provides nationwide-level data regarding continence in adults with spina bifida.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bischoff A, et al. Treatment of fecal incontinence with a comprehensive bowel management program. J Pediatr Surg. 2009;44(6):1278–83 discussion 1283–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Alhazmi H, et al. Long-term results using a transanal irrigation system (Peristeen((R))) for treatment of stool incontinence in children with myelomeningocele. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15(1):34.e1–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kelly MS, et al. Prospective evaluation of Peristeen(R) transanal irrigation system with the validated neurogenic bowel dysfunction score sheet in the pediatric population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):632–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Midrio P, et al. Peristeen((R)) transanal irrigation in paediatric patients with anorectal malformations and spinal cord lesions: a multicentre Italian study. Colorectal Dis. 2016;18(1):86–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bevill MD, et al. Outcomes and satisfaction in pediatric patients with Chait cecostomy tubes. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(4):365–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Halleran DR, et al. 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. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54(1):123–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ibrahim M, et al. Managing fecal incontinence in patients with myelomeningocele in Sub-Saharan Africa: role of antegrade continence enema (ACE). J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(4):554–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Li C, et al. Malone appendicostomy versus cecostomy tube insertion for children with intractable constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(5):885–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mohamed H, et al. Tube cecostomy versus appendicostomy for antegrade enemas in the management of fecal incontinence in children: a systematic review. J Pediatr Surg. 2020:55(7):1196–1200.

  26. Chu DI, et al. Experience with glycerin for antegrade continence enema in patients with neurogenic bowel. J Urol. 2013;189(2):690–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chelluri R, et al. Robotic conversion of cecostomy tube to catheterizable antegrade continence enema (ACE): Surgical technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(9):1871–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lu PL, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for constipation and fecal incontinence in children: long-term outcomes, patient benefit, and parent satisfaction. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018;30(2):e13184.

  29. Fuchs ME, et al. Factors predicting complications after sacral neuromodulation in children. Urology. 2017;107:214–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Clark C, et al. Sacral nerve stimulator revision due to somatic growth. J Urol. 2011;186(4 Suppl):1576–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vriesman MH, et al. Comparison of antegrade continence enema treatment and sacral nerve stimulation for children with severe functional constipation and fecal incontinence. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2020;32(8):e13809.

  32. Lu PL, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation allows for decreased antegrade continence enema use in children with severe constipation. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(4):558–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guys JM, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic bladder dysfunction in children. J Urol. 2004;172(4 Pt 2):1673–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Haddad M, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in children with urinary and fecal incontinence: a multicenter, open label, randomized, crossover study. J Urol. 2010;184(2):696–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schober MS, et al. Novel use of pudendal neuromodulation in a pediatric patient with caudal regression and partial sacral agenesis for refractory bowel bladder dysfunction. Urology. 2016;94:224–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ambartsumyan L, Rodriguez L. Bowel management in children with spina bifida. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2018;11(4):293–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. • Beierwaltes PS, et al. Using a decision tree to guide bowel management in spina bifida. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:68–72 Establishes a well defined decision tree to help with bowel management, making it easy for families to see current process and next steps.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sawin KJ, et al. The National Spina Bifida Patient Registry: profile of a large cohort of participants from the first 10 clinics. J Pediatr. 2015;166(2):444–50.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thibadeau JK, et al. Testing the feasibility of a National Spina Bifida Patient Registry. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2013;97(1):36–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. •• Freeman KA, et al. Variation in bowel and bladder continence across US spina bifida programs: a descriptive study. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2017;10(3–4):231–41 Highlights the low continence rates overall in this population and there are differences amongst institutions.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. • Routh JC, et al. Variation in surgical management of neurogenic bowel among centers participating in National Spina Bifida Patient Registry. J Pediatr Rehabil Med. 2017;10(3–4):303–12 There is significant variation in surgical management across institutions in regards to bowel management.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Large T, et al. Ambulatory patients with spina bifida are 50% more likely to be fecally continent than non-ambulatory patients, particularly after a MACE procedure. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(1):60.e1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. de Blaauw I, et al. First results of a European multi-center registry of patients with anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg. 2013;48(12):2530–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hubert K, et al. Validation of a bowel dysfunction instrument for adolescents with spina bifida. J Pediatr Urol. 2015;11(4):199.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kelly MS, et al. Development, reliability and validation of a neurogenic bowel dysfunction score in pediatric patients with spina bifida. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(2):212–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Krogh K, et al. Neurogenic bowel dysfunction score. Spinal Cord. 2006;44(10):625–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kulkarni AV, Rabin D, Drake JM. An instrument to measure the health status in children with hydrocephalus: the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire. J Neurosurg. 2004;101(2 Suppl):134–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. MacNeily AE, et al. Health related quality of life in patients with spina bifida: a prospective assessment before and after lower urinary tract reconstruction. J Urol. 2009;182(4 Suppl):1984–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nanigian DK, et al. Development and validation of the fecal incontinence and constipation quality of life measure in children with spina bifida. J Urol. 2008;180(4 Suppl):1770–3 discussion 1773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Olesen JD, Kiddoo DA, Metcalfe PD. The association between urinary continence and quality of life in paediatric patients with spina bifida and tethered cord. Paediatr Child Health. 2013;18(7):e32–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Parkin PC, et al. Development of a health-related quality of life instrument for use in children with spina bifida. Qual Life Res. 1997;6(2):123–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sawin KJ, Bellin MH. Quality of life in individuals with spina bifida: a research update. Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2010;16(1):47–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Vajda P, et al. Quality of life: urinary bladder augmentation or substitution in children. Pediatr Surg Int. 2009;25(2):195–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kurian JJ, Jacob TJK, Mathai J. Encouraging results of bowel and bladder management in spina bifida aperta in south india with quality of life scores in a tertiary care institution in South India. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2019;24(1):21–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. • Szymanski KM, et al. QUAlity of Life Assessment in Spina bifida for Adults (QUALAS-A): development and international validation of a novel health-related quality of life instrument. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2355–64 Describes a simple patient-reported quality of life instrument for adults with spina bifida.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Szymanski KM, et al. Quality of Life Assessment in Spina Bifida for Children (QUALAS-C): Development and Validation of a Novel Health-related Quality of Life Instrument. Urology. 2016;87:178–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Szymanski KM, et al. Validation of QUALAS-T, a health-related quality of life instrument for teenagers with spina bifida. Cent European J Urol. 2017;70(3):306–13 Describes a simple patient-reported quality of life instrument for teenagers with spina bifida.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Luther SL, et al. A comparison of patient outcomes and quality of life in persons with neurogenic bowel: standard bowel care program vs colostomy. J Spinal Cord Med. 2005;28(5):387–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Szymanski KM, et al. All incontinence is not created equal: impact of urinary and fecal incontinence on quality of life in adults with spina bifida. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 2):885–91 The amount of urinary incontinence matters to quality of life, but any fecal incontinence has a significant detrimental impact on quality of life.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. •• Szymanski KM, et al. Incontinence affects health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with spina bifida. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(3):279.e1–8 The amount of urinary incontinence matters to quality of life, but any fecal incontinence has a significant detrimental impact on quality of life.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. • Szymanski KM, et al. Quantity, not frequency, predicts bother with urinary incontinence and its impact on quality of life in adults with spina bifida. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 2):1263–9 The amount of urinary incontinence matters to quality of life more so than how often it occurs.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Best KL, et al. Identifying and classifying quality of life tools for neurogenic bladder function after spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Spinal Cord Med. 2017;40(5):505–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Choukou MA, et al. Identifying and classifying quality of life tools for assessing neurogenic bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2019;25(1):1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kyrklund K, Pakarinen MP, Rintala RJ. Long-term bowel function, quality of life and sexual function in patients with anorectal malformations treated during the PSARP era. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2017;26(5):336–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pediatric Urology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave, MLC 5037, Cincinnati, OH, 45229, USA

    Michael Daugherty & Andrew C. Strine

Authors
  1. Michael Daugherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew C. Strine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew C. Strine.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Neurogenic Bladder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daugherty, M., Strine, A.C. Neurogenic Bowel in the Pediatric Patient—Management from Childhood to Adulthood. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 16, 19–24 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-020-00624-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-020-00624-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation