Infant crying patterns in the first year: normal community and clinical findings. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. Psychosocial predisposing factors for infantile colic. Wolke D. Behavioural treatment of prolonged infant crying: evaluation, methods, and a proposal. New evidence on unexplained early infant crying: its origins, nature and management.
Barr RG, St. Treem WR. Infant colic. A pediatric gastroenterologist's perspective. Pediatr Clin North Am. Assessing crying complaints: the interaction with gastroesophageal reflux and cow's milk protein intolerance; pp. Shamir R. Differential calming responses to sucrose taste in crying infants with and without colic. Colic for developmentalists. Infant Ment Health J. Colic and fussing in infancy, and sensory processing at 3 to 8 years of age. Gestational age, small for gestational age, and infantile colic.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. Douglas P, Hill P. Managing infants who cry excessively in the first few months of life. Antenatal maternal stress and longterm effects on child neurodevelopment: how and why?
Paternal depressive symptoms during pregnancy are related to excessive infant crying. Gut motility alterations in neonates and young infants. Gupta SK. Is colic a gastrointestinal disorder?
Curr Opin Pediatr. Altered fecal microflora and increased fecal calprotectin in infants with colic. Intestinal microbiota of infants with colic: development and specific signatures.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Effectiveness of treatments for infantile colic: systematic review. Barr RG. The normal crying curve: what do we really know? Dev Med Child Neurol. The crying infant: diagnostic testing and frequency of serious underlying disease. Infant crying, colic, and gastrointestinal discomfort in early childhood: a review of the evidence and most plausible mechanisms. Paroxysmal fussing in infancy, sometimes called colic. Excessive crying.
Handbook of developmental psychopathology. Infant distress at five weeks of age and caregiver frustration. Can we hear the causes of infants' crying?
Crying as a sign, a symptom, and a signal. London: Mac Keith Press; Bases for maternal perceptions of infant crying and colic behaviour. Family-based intervention improves maternal psychological well-being and feeding interaction of preterm infants. Infantile colic, prolonged crying and maternal postnatal depression. Acta Paediatr. Crying babies, tired mothers: what do we know? A systematic review. Murray L, Cooper P. The impact of irritable infant behavior on maternal mental state: a longitudinal study and a treatment trial.
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM in infantile colic: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lactobacillus reuteri DSM for the management of infantile colic in breastfed infants: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial. Probiotics to prevent or treat excessive infant crying: systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA Pediatr. Defecation patterns in infants: a prospective cohort study. Age of onset of functional constipation. Management of functional constipation in children: therapy in practice. Paediatr Drugs. Commentary: multiple pains as functional pain syndromes.
J Pediatr Psychol. Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Fitzgerald M. The development of nociceptive circuits. Nat Rev Neurosci. Neurodevelopmental changes of fetal pain. Semin Perinatol. Fitzgerald M, Walker SM. Infant pain management: a developmental neurobiological approach. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. Early life risk factors that contribute to irritable bowel syndrome in adults: a systematic review.
Am J Gastroenterol. Gebhart GF. Pathobiology of visceral pain: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications IV. Visceral afferent contributions to the pathobiology of visceral pain. Studies comparing numerical rating scales, verbal rating scales, and visual analogue scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. The illustrated case above exemplifies a typical patient with IBS. The patient describes symptoms lasting 5 years, having started after an episode of a suspected infectious food borne gastrointestinal illness.
She reports current symptoms of lower abdominal pain with loose watery stools along with a sense of urgency, tenesmus, bloating and abdominal distention. She underwent stool and serum testing which was unremarkable, and reasonable trials of lactose, fructose and gluten avoidance did not help. Due to persistent symptoms, she underwent a colonoscopy with normal biopsies and was initiated on treatment to address her diarrhea; however, she was not provided with a diagnosis of IBS, and continues to have multiple questions and concerns regarding her ongoing symptoms.
Obtaining a detailed history with a few additional questions is warranted to confirm the suspected diagnosis of IBS. It is important to start by ruling out any warning signs. These include: age over 50 without prior colon cancer screening; the presence of overt GI bleeding; nocturnal passage of stools; unintentional weight loss; a family history of inflammatory bowel disease or colorectal cancer; recent changes in bowel habits; and the presence of a palpable abdominal mass or lymphadenopathy.
If these warning signs are absent, further history should be obtained to quantify the frequency of symptoms and determine whether the patient meets the Rome IV diagnostic criteria. More specifically, the patient should be asked if her pain is present at least one day a week on average for the last 3 months.
In our case, the patient has reported a duration of 5 years, which meets the requirement of having an onset greater than 6 months prior to diagnosis. The rationale behind the latter two questions is to ensure that the symptoms are recent, and that there is no organic disease manifesting itself over at least 6 months.
The final component to applying the criteria involves associating the abdominal pain to bowel habits. A careful history should be obtained to confirm whether abdominal pain is related to defecation, a change in stool frequency, or a change in the appearance of stool. In order to clarify the latter characteristic, the Bristol stool chart should be employed as previously described.
A benign physical examination further supports the diagnosis of IBS, although the importance of a physical examination cannot be underestimated as this does reassure the patient [ 8 , 9 ]. As illustrated in this case, unfortunately the yield of confirmatory testing to rule out an alternate diagnosis is low.
This highlights the rationale outlined in position statements, original articles, and review articles that extensive testing in patients with symptoms of IBS who meet Rome criteria is unlikely to uncover a new diagnosis [ 8 , 9 ]. It is important, however, to obtain a complete blood count to ensure the absence of an iron deficiency anemia, and a CRP can be requested to lower the suspicion for inflammatory bowel disease.
Alternatively, a fecal calprotectin can be considered, especially in IBS patients with diarrhea or with diarrhea and constipation, since it can help differentiate IBS from IBD with good accuracy and may prevent the indiscriminate use of colonoscopy.
Celiac testing should be obtained, ideally in the setting of adequate gluten consumption, since IBS may mimic this disorder. At this point in the evaluation, if patients meet the diagnostic criteria for IBS, further testing should be discouraged and education and reassurance provided. Based on a prospective case-control study including patients, colonoscopy did not change the diagnosis of IBS in One of the most important tools to ensure a satisfactory patient visit is to allow time to let the patient tell their story.
This helps set a strong foundation in building a strong physician—patient relationship. As a part of this process, it is important to review all prior diagnostic studies and treatments. This is time well-spent, as it will prevent unnecessary repeat testing or therapeutic trials. It is also important to ask patients whether they have any fears or concerns about their symptoms, as many patients with IBS symptoms are quite concerned that their symptoms represent a hidden malignancy or IBD [ 16 ].
A brief physical examination should be performed; this too reassures the patient that complaints are being taken seriously. In this patient, who does not have predominant symptoms of constipation, a rectal examination is not required, especially since she recently had a colonoscopy that was normal.
However, in patients with constipation symptoms, and certainly in those without recent colonoscopic evaluation, a careful rectal examination should be performed. This is useful to help diagnose patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia. At this point, the patient should be confidently told that she has IBS. She clearly meets Rome IV criteria. Symptoms have been present for greater than 6 months and have been active for the last 3 months.
She suffers from abdominal pain more than 1 day per week on average, and pain is temporally related to disordered defecation and to a change in stool appearance and frequency.
There are no warning signs on history or examination. In addition, prior diagnostic testing, including a colonoscopy with biopsies, and serologic tests to rule out celiac disease, have all been normal.
She should also be told about the possible etiology to her developing IBS, which appears to be post infectious in nature. It is important that patients walk away from their visit with a confident diagnosis, as two other key components of a successful patient visit include educating and reassuring the patient about their condition.
However, education and reassurance cannot occur if a diagnosis is not made. Furthermore, language that communicates diagnostic certainty is essential, since it conveys confidence in the diagnosis and allows acceptance by the patient, thus preventing further unwarranted testing [ 17 ]. For this patient, she is told that the diagnosis of IBS is based on a constellation of symptoms, an absence of warning signs, a normal physical examination, and the results of limited diagnostic tests.
The Rome IV criteria can be explained in terms comfortable to the patient. For this patient, who is quite savvy, knowing that she meets specific criteria for IBS should be reassuring. In addition, it will provide her with the appropriate framework to do on-line research on her own.
At this point, the patient should be confidently told that no further testing is required. Extensive testing is unlikely to uncover an alternative diagnosis and will not reassure the patient. In fact, subjecting each and every patient with IBS symptoms to a battery of expensive, and sometimes dangerous, tests only undermines their confidence in the ordering provider. The fourth key component of a successful patient visit involves working together to improve symptoms. As mentioned, the key symptom or symptoms should be identified and treatment initiated.
The prevalence of both criteria was assessed and compared. Results One hundred ninety-eight consecutive patients age: 0. Fair agreement was found between functional non-retentive faecal soiling and solitary encopresis. Conclusions The Rome criteria are restrictive and exclude several children with constipation. We recommend including encopresis and rectal digital examination and excluding arbitrary age limits and retentive behaviour in the revision of the Rome criteria.
In a minority of patients, encopresis is present without other symptoms of constipation 2. These children have a normal defecation frequency and normal size and consistency of stool without faecal retention on physical examination. Furthermore, these children have normal colonic transit time measured by the radio-opaque marker technique 2. On the basis of this symptomatology, strict 'classic' criteria have been developed to define constipation and encopresis in children Table 1 that were useful in evaluating end points of various treatment regimens 2,4.
Recently, a group of experts in the field of paediatric gastroenterology made an attempt to set criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders in childhood, leading to the first paediatric Rome II criteria 5. These criteria have provided clinicians with a method for standardizing their definition of clinical disorders and have allowed researchers from various fields to study the patho- physiology and treatment of the same disorders from different points of view 5 Table 1.
However, little is known about the applicability in clinical practice and research of the paediatric Rome II criteria. Therefore, our aims were to study and compare the prevalence of functional constipation FC , functional faecal retention FFR , and functional non-retentive faecal soiling FNRFS according to the Rome II criteria and paediatric constipation PC and solitary encopresis SE according to the classic criteria, in children referred to a tertiary centre for evaluation of defecation disorders and to assess whether the Rome II criteria and classic criteria identify the same patients.
Children with organic causes for defecation disorders, including Hirschsprung's disease, spina bifida occulta, or hypothyroidism, were excluded from the study. Two weeks before the initial visit, all patients were sent a diary in which they were asked to record defecation and encopresis frequency. Encopresis was defined as the loss of loose stool in the underwear.
Soiling was defined as staining of the underwear. However, since parents are not able to accurately estimate the amount of faeces lost in the underwear and t h u s can not differentiate between soiling and encopresis, we will further only use the term encopresis, defined as the loss of any quantity of faeces in the underwear 6. To objectively study symptoms, laxative treatment had to be discontinued during the 2-week record period.
At intake, all patients were subjected to a standard history and physical examination, including digital rectal examination.
Form and consistency of stool were assessed through the use of standardized drawings and clay models. Rectal examination was not performed in children considered too frightened to undergo this procedure.
Of the children originally included in this study, 68 children were excluded from further analysis: 1 27 patients were too frightened to undergo rectal examination, 2 parents of 18 patients were not able to reliably answer if their child avoided defecation by contracting the pelvic floor muscles purposefully, and 3 in 23 patients, the parents could not report reliably about the form or consistency of stools of their child.
Statistical sub-analysis of the initial sample of patients and the final sample of children showed no significant differences with respect to clinical features, treatment before intake, and final diagnoses, demonstrating no selection bias. All data are based on these patients Table 2. The median time of laxative treatment before intake was 8. Of all children with a diagnosis of constipation according to the Rome II criteria i.
Large, firm stools were significantly more present in the group of FC children younger than 6 years of age compared with children older than 6 years of age with FC. The mean age of these children was 6.
As mentioned above, the question of retentive posturing could not adequately be answered by the parents in 18 children. These patients had a mean age of 7. The mean age in this group of children was 8.
These patients had Rome II-specific items such as retentive posturing and scybalous, pebble-like, hard stools, without other criteria as mentioned by the classic criteria. Nonretentive Fecal Incontinence Diagnostic criteria Must include at least a 1-month history in a child with a developmental age older than 4 years of all of the following:.
Home News Contact Us. Esophageal Disorders A1. Gastroduodenal Disorders B1. Excessive Supragastric Belching from esophagus B2b. Bowel Disorders C1. Gallbladder and Sphincter of Oddi Disorders E1. Anorectal Disorders F1. Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Diagnostic criteria Must include all of the following: Two or more periods of intense, unremitting nausea and paroxysmal vomiting, lasting hours to days within a 6-month period Episodes are stereotypical in each patient Episodes are separated by weeks to months with return to baseline health between episodes After appropriate evaluation, the symptoms cannot be attributed to another medical condition H1b.
Functional Nausea and Functional Vomiting H1b1.
0コメント