摘要
AIM: To investigate coping mechanisms, constipation symptoms and anorectal physiology in 80 constipated subjects and 18 controls.METHODS: Constipation was diagnosed by Rome Ⅱ criteria.Coping ability and anxiety/depression were assessed by validated questionnaires. Transit time and balloon distension test were performed.RESULTS: 34.5% patients were classified as slow transit type of constipation. The total colonic transit time (56 h vs 10 h, P＜0.0001) and rectal sensation including urge sensation (79 mL vs 63 mL, P = 0.019) and maximum tolerable volume (110 mL vs95 mL, P = 0.03) differed in patients and controls. Constipated subjects had significantly higher anxiety and depression scores and lower SF-36 scores in all categories. They also demonstrated higher scores of'monitoring' coping strategy (14+6 vs9+3, P = 0.001),which correlated with the rectal distension sensation (P = 0.005), urge sensation (P=0.002), and maximum tolerable volume (P = 0.035). The less use of blunting strategy predicted slow transit constipation in both univariate (P = 0.01) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.03).CONCLUSION: Defective or ineffective use of coping strategies may be an important etiology in functional constipation and subsequently reflected in abnormal anorectal physiology.
AIM： To investigate coping mechanisms, constipation symptoms and anorectal physiology in 80 constipated subjects and 18 controls.
METHODS： Constipation was diagnosed by Rome Ⅱ criteria. Coping ability and anxiety/depression were assessed by validated questionnaires. Transit time and balloon distension test were performed. RESULTS： 34.5% patients were classified as slow transit type of constipation. The total colonic transit time （56 h vs 10 h, P〈0.0001） and rectal sensation including urge sensation （79 mL vs 63 mL, P = 0.019） and maximum tolerable volume （110 mL vs95 mL, P= 0.03） differed in patients and controls. Constipated subjects had significantly higher anxiety and depression scores and lower SF-36 scores in all categories. They also demonstrated higher scores of ＇monitoring＇ coping strategy （14±6 vs9±3,P=0.001）, which correlated with the rectal distension sensation （P=0.005）, urge sensation （P=0.002）, and maximum tolerable volume （P=0.035）. The less use of blunting strategy predicted slow transit constipation in both univariate （P=0.01） and multivariate analysis （P=0.03）. CONCLUSION： Defective or ineffective use of coping strategies may be an important etiology in functional constipation and subsequently reflected in abnormal anorectal physiology.
