Brief Reports
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2005. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 14, 2005; 11(34): 5362-5366
Published online Sep 14, 2005. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i34.5362
Differing coping mechanisms, stress level and anorectal physiology in patients with functional constipation
Annie OO Chan, Cecilia Cheng, Wai Mo Hui, Wayne HC Hu, Nina YH Wong, KF Lam, Wai Man Wong, Kam Chuen Lai, Shiu Kum Lam, Benjamin CY Wong
Annie OO Chan, Wai Mo Hui, Wayne HC Hu, Nina YH Wong, KF Lam, Wai Man Wong, Kam Chuen Lai, Shiu Kum Lam, Benjamin CY Wong, Department of Medicine, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
KF Lam, Department of Statistics, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Cecilia Cheng, Division of Social Science, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the work.
Correspondence to: Annie OO Chan, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China. aoochan@hku.hk
Telephone: +852-2855-5414 Fax: +852-2855-5411
Received: December 18, 2004
Revised: January 23, 2005
Accepted: January 26, 2005
Published online: September 14, 2005
Abstract

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 vs 95 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 vs 9 ± 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.

Keywords: Constipation; Anorectal physiology; Coping mechanism