| Literature DB >> 30852867 |
Young-Cheol Yun1, Yong-Soon Yoon1,2, Eun-Sil Kim1, Young-Jae Lee3, Jin-Gyeong Lee1, Won-Jae Jo1, Kwang Jae Lee1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of the transabdominal functional magnetic stimulation (A-FMS) for constipation in stroke or brain-injured patients.Entities:
Keywords: Brain injuries; Constipation; Magnetic stimulation; Stroke; Traumatic brain injuries
Year: 2019 PMID: 30852867 PMCID: PMC6409655 DOI: 10.5535/arm.2019.43.1.19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Rehabil Med ISSN: 2234-0645
Rome III diagnostic criteria of functional constipation
| 1. Must include two or more of the following |
| - Straining during at least 25% of defecations |
| - Lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of defecations |
| - The sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of defecations |
| - The sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage for at least 25% of defecations |
| - Manual maneuvers to facilitate at least 25% of defecations (e.g., digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor) |
| - Fewer than three defecations per week |
| 2. Rare presence of loose stool without the use of laxatives |
| 3. Insufficient criteria for irritable bowel syndrome |
Fig. 1.Simple abdomen radiographs show (A) three segments of the colon (right, left, and rectosigmoid colon) and distribution of radiopacity markers (arrows), and (B) before and (C) after 2 weeks of transabdominal functional magnetic stimulation. Three segments were divided with imaginary lines starting from the spinous process of a 5th lumbar vertebra to the upper spinous processes, to passing the right pelvic outlet, and to passing the left iliac crest. To calculate the colon transit time, the number of remaining radiopacity markers were counted and multiplied by 1.2 [15].
Bristol Stool scale
| Type 1. | Separate hard lumps, like nuts |
| Type 2. | Sausage-shaped but lumpy |
| Type 3. | Like a sausage or snake but with cracks on its surface |
| Type 4. | Like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft |
| Type 5. | Soft blobs with clear-cut edges |
| Type 6. | Fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy stool |
| Type 7. | Watery with no solid pieces |
Fig. 2.Transabdominal functional magnetic stimulation is applied in an experimental patient (A) and sham stimulation in control patient (B). In (B), note that the magnetic head is 5 cm apart from the patient’s belly and the stimulation intensity is 30% of the maximal intensity (1.5 T) so that the patient hears stimulation sound but does not feel the magnetic stimulation.
Demographics and general characteristics of the patients
| Sham group (n=12) | MS group (n=12) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) | 69.2±12.3 | 59.7±10.9 | 0.059 |
| Sex | 0.682 | ||
| Male | 5 | 6 | |
| Female | 7 | 6 | |
| Age (yr) | 69.2±12.3 | 59.7±10.9 | 0.059 |
| Weight (kg) | 61.8±10.8 | 60.7±8.4 | 0.549 |
| Type of injury | 0.523 | ||
| CI | 5 | 6 | |
| S-ICH | 5 | 6 | |
| TBI | 2 | 0 | |
| Onset (mo) | 16.0±34.0 | 10.1±19.7 | 0.977 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
MS, magnetic stimulation; CI, cerebral infarction; S-ICH, spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage; TBI, traumatic brain injury.
Fig. 3.Comparison of colon transit time (CTT) between transabdominal functional magnetic stimulation group (MS) and sham stimulation group (Sham): (A) total CTT, (B) right colon CTT, (C) left colon CTT, and (D) rectosigmoid CTT. PRE, pre-treatment; POST, post-treatment. *p<0.05 by Student t-test.