Upload
duongkhanh
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dr. Karen M. Smith, Associate Professor at Queen’s University in the Faculty of Health Sciencesfrom l994 to the present. She is affiliated with Providence Care, St. Mary’s of the Lake Site,Kingston General, Hotel Dieu and Brockville Hospitals. She is the Clinical Director of the AcquiredBrain Injury and Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Services from 1994 to present. She was AssociateProfessor at McMaster University until 1994.
Dr Smith completed her Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation residency training at McMasterUniversity. She is a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Diplomatof the American Board of Electrodiagnostic Medicine and the American Board of Physical Medicineand Rehabilitation with subspecialty certification in Spinal Cord Injury Medicine attained in 2003.Her clinical interests and expertise are in ABI, SCI and pediatric rehabilitation. Her research interestsare in clinical trials with current trials in the areas of primary care for persons with disabilities,quality of life, exercise, and neurogenic bowel management.
CONTACT INFO:
Providence Care | St. Mary’s of the Lake HospitalDept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation340 Union Street, Box 3600, Kingston, ON K7L 5A2Phone: 613-544-1894 [email protected]
DR. KAREN SMITH
with THOMSON, ROGERS
and Canadian Paraplegic Association Ontario
Neurogenic Bowel UpdateDr. Karen M. Smith
Associate ProfessorQueen’s University
Disclosure
Have received an honorarium from Coloplast for speaking on one occasion
Expenses paid to attend a training session on the use of transanal irrigation
Provided with free supplies to trial TAI with first 10 patients
2
Objectives
Present a treatment paradigm for neurogenic bowel dysfunction to include transanalirrigation
Begin a discussion of the opportunities for research including quality improvement in neurogenic bowel management
3
4
Compare and contrast the two main types of neurogenic bowel dysfunction Areflexia or LMN bowel
Damage to the parasympathetic nerves, no spinal cord mediated reflex defecation nor reflex peristalsis. Levator ani and EAS are denervated and lax.
Reflexic or UMN bowel No volitional control of defecation. Spinal mediated
reflexes intact. Colon and EAS are spastic. Decreased number of propogating waves after food intake.
5
6
Standard neurogenic bowel care
Standard neurogenic bowel management according to CPG from the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine by PVA
Bowel program addressing fluids,diet,medsand regular bowel care addressing position, digital stimulation and other techniques
7
Nonsurgical adjunctive measures
Transanal irrigation Level 1 evidence of reduced UTI and constipation, and improved fecal continence
Colonic irrigation Level 4 removing stool
Electrical stimulation of the abdominal wall Level 1
Functional magnetic stimulation Level 4
8
Transanal Irrigation
9
Transanal irrigation
Long-term results show improvement in 41-75% of patients with fecal incontinence and 40-65% with constipation
Scintigraphic studies show emptying of the rectosigmoid and descending colon (nonSCI)
Cost-effectiveness analysis shows higher product related costs but reduced attendant costs, clothes/garments and UTI costs
Christensen et al Gastro 2006; Spinal Cord 200910
Before defecation After ”normal” defecation
Non injured person
SCI patient
Christensen P et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2003; 46: 68-76. Figures 2 & 3 pages 70-71: Reproduced with kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media.
Colonic scintigraphy
11
Scintigraphy – pre and post irrigation with Peristeen in SCI individual
12
13
Colonic Irrigation
14
Colonic Irrigation
15
Colonic irrigation
Level 4 evidence shown in 31 patients with SCI that this was effective in removing stool
Long-term safety shown in four patients using the procedure an average of 3.5 times weekly for av 6.7 years
Published results in nonSCI subjects show safety and efficacy in short and long term use
Puet et al Spinal Cord 1997;35:694-699 Gramlich et al Dig Dis Sci 1998;43:1831-1834 Kososka et al Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:161-164 Gilger et al J Ped 1994;18:92-95 Chang et al Gastro Endosc 1991;37:444-448
16
Surgical strategies
Based on systematic reviews (including 29 original articles), utilities catalogues and life table analysis Furlan et al ranked 4 surgical strategies for neurogenic bowel management
Primary outcome quality-adjusted life expectancy
Furlan et al Br J Surgery 2007;94:1139-115017
Ranking based on primary outcome
MACE
SARS implantation
Colostomy
Ileostomy
18
19
MACE Malone Antegrade Continence Enema
picture
20
Clinical Assessment Tools
Bowel Function Basic and Extended Data Sets; contain data allows computation of the St Marks and Wexner score for fecal incontinence, Cleveland Constipation Score and Neurogenic Bowel Dysfn Score
Total gastrointestinal or colonic transit time, right colonic or left colonic transit
Anorectal manometry
21
Optimal conservative neurogenic bowel care
Targeted implementation strategies improve provider adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines
Overall Level 4 evidence of reduced GI transit time, incidence of difficult evacuations and duration of time required
Level 1 evidence preferring polyethylene glycol-based suppositories
22
Neurogenic Bowel Care
Optimize conservative neurogenic bowel care and don’t forget education/implementation strategies
Nonsurgical adjunctive measures Transanal irrigation Colonic irrigation Functional electrical and magnetic stimulation of skeletal muscles
Surgical measures (in order of suggested preference) MACE SARS Colostomy Ileostomy
23
24
Research opportunities Biologic issues
Pathology and physiologic changes
Effects of level, time since injury and autonomic dysfunction on NBD
Outcome measurement
Testing
Policy issues
Funding of supplies, attendant care
Scope of practice for attendants
Primary Care 25
27