sen皂苷、氢氧化镁、聚乙二醇治疗肛肠畸形便秘:一项随机交叉试验。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS
Butsarin Nate-Anong, Jiraporn Khorana, Sireekarn Chantakhow, Jesda Singhavejsakul, Kanokkan Tepmalai
{"title":"sen皂苷、氢氧化镁、聚乙二醇治疗肛肠畸形便秘:一项随机交叉试验。","authors":"Butsarin Nate-Anong, Jiraporn Khorana, Sireekarn Chantakhow, Jesda Singhavejsakul, Kanokkan Tepmalai","doi":"10.1007/s00383-025-06174-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the efficacy and user preference of Sennosides, magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in treating constipation in ARM patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized crossover trial was conducted from January 2018 to December 2019. Fifteen patients with surgically corrected ARM and diagnosed constipation were enrolled. Each patient received all three laxatives in a random order for 21-day periods, separated by washout periods. The primary outcome was post-treatment fecal loading assessed by Leech score on abdominal radiography. Secondary outcomes included the rate of clean fecal loading (Leech score ≤ 6) and user preference scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean post-treatment Leech scores were 6.67 ± 2.09 for Sennosides, 6.80 ± 2.37 for Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>, and 5.80 ± 2.04 for PEG(p = 0.841). Clean fecal loading was achieved in 40% of cases with Sennosides, 46.67% with Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>, and 60% with PEG(p = 0.655). User preference scores favored Sennosides (7.00 ± 2.36) over Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub> (6.33 ± 2.94) and PEG (5.06 ± 2.28) with p = 0.582. No significant differences in treatment, period, or sequence effects were found, with the exception of a decrease in preference for Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub> compared with Sennosides in the third treatment period (p = 0.045).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While PEG showed a trend towards better fecal clearance and Sennosides was preferred by users, no statistically significant differences in efficacy or user preference were found among the three laxatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":19832,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Surgery International","volume":"41 1","pages":"268"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sennosides vs magnesium hydroxide vs polyethylene glycol as a treatment for constipation in anorectal malformation: a randomized crossover trial.\",\"authors\":\"Butsarin Nate-Anong, Jiraporn Khorana, Sireekarn Chantakhow, Jesda Singhavejsakul, Kanokkan Tepmalai\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00383-025-06174-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the efficacy and user preference of Sennosides, magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in treating constipation in ARM patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized crossover trial was conducted from January 2018 to December 2019. Fifteen patients with surgically corrected ARM and diagnosed constipation were enrolled. Each patient received all three laxatives in a random order for 21-day periods, separated by washout periods. The primary outcome was post-treatment fecal loading assessed by Leech score on abdominal radiography. Secondary outcomes included the rate of clean fecal loading (Leech score ≤ 6) and user preference scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean post-treatment Leech scores were 6.67 ± 2.09 for Sennosides, 6.80 ± 2.37 for Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>, and 5.80 ± 2.04 for PEG(p = 0.841). Clean fecal loading was achieved in 40% of cases with Sennosides, 46.67% with Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub>, and 60% with PEG(p = 0.655). User preference scores favored Sennosides (7.00 ± 2.36) over Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub> (6.33 ± 2.94) and PEG (5.06 ± 2.28) with p = 0.582. No significant differences in treatment, period, or sequence effects were found, with the exception of a decrease in preference for Mg(OH)<sub>2</sub> compared with Sennosides in the third treatment period (p = 0.045).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While PEG showed a trend towards better fecal clearance and Sennosides was preferred by users, no statistically significant differences in efficacy or user preference were found among the three laxatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Surgery International\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"268\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Surgery International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-025-06174-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Surgery International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-025-06174-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较sen皂苷、氢氧化镁(Mg(OH)2)和聚乙二醇(PEG)治疗ARM患者便秘的疗效和用药偏好。方法:2018年1月至2019年12月进行随机交叉试验。纳入了15例手术矫正的ARM和诊断为便秘的患者。每名患者在21天的时间内随机服用所有三种泻药,并通过洗脱期分开。主要结果是通过腹部x线摄影的Leech评分评估治疗后的粪便负荷。次要结果包括清洁粪便负荷率(Leech评分≤6)和使用者偏好评分。结果:人参皂苷的平均Leech评分为6.67±2.09,Mg(OH)2的平均评分为6.80±2.37,PEG的平均评分为5.80±2.04 (p = 0.841)。Sennosides组40%,Mg(OH)2组46.67%,PEG组60% (p = 0.655)。用户偏好得分为7.00±2.36,高于Mg(OH)2(6.33±2.94)和PEG(5.06±2.28),p = 0.582。除了在第三个处理期Mg(OH)2的偏好比Sennosides降低(p = 0.045)外,在处理、周期或序列效应上没有发现显著差异。结论:聚乙二醇有较好的排便效果,用户更倾向于使用Sennosides,但三种泻药的疗效和用户偏好差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sennosides vs magnesium hydroxide vs polyethylene glycol as a treatment for constipation in anorectal malformation: a randomized crossover trial.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and user preference of Sennosides, magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) in treating constipation in ARM patients.

Methods: A randomized crossover trial was conducted from January 2018 to December 2019. Fifteen patients with surgically corrected ARM and diagnosed constipation were enrolled. Each patient received all three laxatives in a random order for 21-day periods, separated by washout periods. The primary outcome was post-treatment fecal loading assessed by Leech score on abdominal radiography. Secondary outcomes included the rate of clean fecal loading (Leech score ≤ 6) and user preference scores.

Results: The mean post-treatment Leech scores were 6.67 ± 2.09 for Sennosides, 6.80 ± 2.37 for Mg(OH)2, and 5.80 ± 2.04 for PEG(p = 0.841). Clean fecal loading was achieved in 40% of cases with Sennosides, 46.67% with Mg(OH)2, and 60% with PEG(p = 0.655). User preference scores favored Sennosides (7.00 ± 2.36) over Mg(OH)2 (6.33 ± 2.94) and PEG (5.06 ± 2.28) with p = 0.582. No significant differences in treatment, period, or sequence effects were found, with the exception of a decrease in preference for Mg(OH)2 compared with Sennosides in the third treatment period (p = 0.045).

Conclusion: While PEG showed a trend towards better fecal clearance and Sennosides was preferred by users, no statistically significant differences in efficacy or user preference were found among the three laxatives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
215
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Surgery International is a journal devoted to the publication of new and important information from the entire spectrum of pediatric surgery. The major purpose of the journal is to promote postgraduate training and further education in the surgery of infants and children. The contents will include articles in clinical and experimental surgery, as well as related fields. One section of each issue is devoted to a special topic, with invited contributions from recognized authorities. Other sections will include: -Review articles- Original articles- Technical innovations- Letters to the editor
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信