Encopresis treatment outcome: long-term follow-up of 45 cases.

Among children diagnosed and treated for encopresis (N = 88) at either of two incontinence clinics between 1986 and 1994, 45 could be assessed for long-term (>12 months) outcome. Measures consisted of retrospective analysis of clinical charts and parent report of child soiling status. At follow-up (mean duration 53 months, range 15 to 99 months), 26 children (58%) were in remission, 13 (29%) were improved, and six (13%) showed no improvement. Logistic regression showed that children who presented with no previous encopresis treatment(s) (odds ratio 5.88, 95% confidence interval 1.61 to 21.55, p < .01) and/or children who presented with fecal retention (odds ratio 17.8, 95% confidence interval 2.70 to 153.37, p < .01) were more likely to be in remission. The interval between treatment and follow-up was significantly longer (mean 62 months, range 26 to 94) for children in remission than for children still soiling (mean 45 months, range 15 to 75) (p < .01). At follow-up 1 year or more after treatment for encopresis, a significant number of children may continue to soil. Previous encopresis treatment(s) and/or nonretentive encopresis may be risk factors for persistent soiling. The chances of complete remission of encopresis tend to increase with the passage of time.

The plain abdominal roentgenogram in the management of encopresis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fecal retention in encopretic children can be assessed objectively using the plain abdominal roentgenogram and whether roentgenographic evidence of fecal retention is associated with clinical findings on presentation in encopretic children. DESIGN: Retrospective case studies. SETTING: Two pediatric incontinence clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty children (72% male), aged 4 to 18 years (mean, 8 years), who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition criteria for the diagnosis of encopresis. All had a plain abdominal roentgenogram obtained on presentation. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Using a systematic assessment tool with good interrater reliability (kappa = 0.65), 78% (47) of the children had fecal retention by roentgenographic criteria on presentation, while 22% (13) did not. Retentive encopretic children were less likely to have a history of difficult toilet training (P = .018) than nonretentive encopretic children. There was no association between fecal retention and several clinical factors, including historical features commonly attributed to fecal retention. Retentive encopretic children were no more likely to have a palpable abdominal mass than nonretentive encopretic children, but they were more likely to have excessive stool on rectal examination (P = .015). Using the plain abdominal roentgenogram as the gold standard, the rectal examination showed a positive predictive value of 84.8% and a negative predictive value of 50% in assessing fecal retention. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal retention in encopretic children can be assessed objectively from a plain abdominal roentgenogram. Most, but not all, encopretic children present with fecal retention. A positive rectal examination is strongly predictive of fecal retention, in which case a roentgenogram is not necessary to make that diagnosis. A negative rectal examination may not rule out fecal retention, in which case an abdominal roentgenogram may be useful to make that diagnosis.