Does Prophylactic Use of Postcesarean Section Laxatives Favor Bowel Movements?

Q4 Medicine Journal of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2022-07-20 DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1754382
Isaac José Felippe Corrêa Neto, Juliana Lazzarini Pizzo, Amanda Gambi Robles, Leonardo Mauri, L. Robles
{"title":"Does Prophylactic Use of Postcesarean Section Laxatives Favor Bowel Movements?","authors":"Isaac José Felippe Corrêa Neto, Juliana Lazzarini Pizzo, Amanda Gambi Robles, Leonardo Mauri, L. Robles","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1754382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Introduction Chronic constipation (CC) is a highly prevalent disease in Western society. Chronic constipation can have a different etiology in patients who underwent a cesarean section and result from postoperative stress and metabolic response to trauma, analgesic agents, immobilization, and dietary restrictions. Chronic constipation may also occur due to puerperium-related psychological changes and to the stretching and weakening of the perineal and abdominal muscles after childbirth.\n Objectives The present study analyzes intestinal transit restoration after a cesarean section and the influence of osmotic laxative agents.\n Methods The present prospective, nonrandomized sample study used the ROME III questionnaire and the Bristol stool scale in adult women who underwent a cesarean section. We divided the subjects into 2 groups, each with 30 patients, to compare the effect of the prophylactic administration of an osmotic laxative.\n Results We evaluated 60 randomly-chosen pregnant women from the Obstetrics ward of Hospital Santa Marcelina, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, from October 2019 to March 2020. Their mean age was 26.8 years old, and the mean gestation time was 37.95 weeks. Ten patients (16.7%) presented with constipation before the cesarean section, and 38 (63.3%) had a bowel movement after the procedure. However, in 84.2% of these patients, the usual stool consistency worsened. After the cesarean section, 46.7% of the women who did not receive laxative agents had a bowel movement, compared with 80% of those who did (p = 0.0074).\n Conclusion Some factors, including those related to the procedure, may hamper intestinal transit restoration after a cesarean section. Osmotic laxative agents can facilitate transit restoration with no negative effects in this group of patients.","PeriodicalId":15408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Coloproctology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1754382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Chronic constipation (CC) is a highly prevalent disease in Western society. Chronic constipation can have a different etiology in patients who underwent a cesarean section and result from postoperative stress and metabolic response to trauma, analgesic agents, immobilization, and dietary restrictions. Chronic constipation may also occur due to puerperium-related psychological changes and to the stretching and weakening of the perineal and abdominal muscles after childbirth. Objectives The present study analyzes intestinal transit restoration after a cesarean section and the influence of osmotic laxative agents. Methods The present prospective, nonrandomized sample study used the ROME III questionnaire and the Bristol stool scale in adult women who underwent a cesarean section. We divided the subjects into 2 groups, each with 30 patients, to compare the effect of the prophylactic administration of an osmotic laxative. Results We evaluated 60 randomly-chosen pregnant women from the Obstetrics ward of Hospital Santa Marcelina, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, from October 2019 to March 2020. Their mean age was 26.8 years old, and the mean gestation time was 37.95 weeks. Ten patients (16.7%) presented with constipation before the cesarean section, and 38 (63.3%) had a bowel movement after the procedure. However, in 84.2% of these patients, the usual stool consistency worsened. After the cesarean section, 46.7% of the women who did not receive laxative agents had a bowel movement, compared with 80% of those who did (p = 0.0074). Conclusion Some factors, including those related to the procedure, may hamper intestinal transit restoration after a cesarean section. Osmotic laxative agents can facilitate transit restoration with no negative effects in this group of patients.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防性使用剖宫产镇痛药有利于排便吗?
介绍 慢性便秘(CC)是西方社会中一种非常普遍的疾病。剖宫产患者的慢性便秘可能有不同的病因,这是由于术后压力和对创伤、止痛药、固定和饮食限制的代谢反应造成的。慢性便秘也可能是由于产褥期相关的心理变化以及产后会阴和腹肌的拉伸和减弱而发生的。目标 本研究分析了剖宫产术后肠道运输的恢复以及渗透性泻药的影响。方法 本前瞻性非随机样本研究采用ROME III问卷和Bristol大便量表对接受剖宫产的成年女性进行调查。我们将受试者分为两组,每组30名患者,以比较预防性使用渗透性泻药的效果。后果 我们评估了2019年10月至2020年3月期间从巴西SP州圣保罗市Santa Marcelina医院产科病房随机选择的60名孕妇。平均年龄26.8岁,平均妊娠期37.95周。10名患者(16.7%)在剖宫产前出现便秘,38名患者(63.3%)在手术后排便。然而,在84.2%的患者中,通常的粪便稠度恶化。剖宫产后,46.7%未服用泻药的妇女排便,而服用泻药者的排便率为80%(p = 0.0074)。结论 一些因素,包括与手术相关的因素,可能会阻碍剖宫产术后肠道运输的恢复。渗透性泻药可以促进转运恢复,对这组患者没有负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Coloproctology
Journal of Coloproctology Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
47 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Salvia officinalis in the Treatment of Acetic Acid-Induced Ulcerative Colitis in a Rat Model Unusual Case of Colonic Intussusception Caused by Angiolipoma: Case Report and Literature Review Vegetating Lesions that Appear in the Scar after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Tumors: Tumor Regrowth or Benign Neoplasm? Retrospective Study of Patients Submitted to Appendectomy in a Tertiary Hospital: Is There a Difference between the Public and Supplementary Health System? Pilonidal Sinus of the Anal Canal: A Rare Entity - Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1