Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation.

Department of General Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield, England, UK, S5 7AU.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2010; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007570.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Constipation is a common clinical problem. Lactulose and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) are both commonly used osmotic laxatives that have been shown to be effective and safe treatments for chronic constipation. However, there is no definitive data as to which provides the best treatment.
To identify and review all relevant data in order to determine whether Lactulose or Polyethylene Glycol is more effective at treating chronic constipation and faecal impaction.
We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of lactulose and polyethylene glycol in the management of faecal impaction and chronic constipation.
Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials which compared lactulose with polyethylene glycol in the management of chronic constipation.
Data on study methods, participants, interventions used and outcomes measured was extracted from each study. Data was entered into the Cochrane Review Manager software (RevMan 5.0) and analysed using Cochrane MetaView.
In the present meta-analysis, we considered for the first time all ten randomised controlled trials so far performed. The findings of our work indicate that Polyethylene glycol is better than lactulose in outcomes of stool frequency per week, form of stool, relief of abdominal pain and the need for additional products. On subgroup analysis, this is seen in both adults and children, except for relief of abdominal pain.
Polyethylene Glycol should be used in preference to Lactulose in the treatment of Chronic Constipation.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the effect of implementing a constipation management protocol (CMP) within a geriatric rehabilitation setting. A convergent mixed-methods research design was used. Quantitative data on bowel activity, laxative use, opiate drug use, and nursing documentation regarding bowel care were gathered through a review of health records for 305 patients admitted to three geriatric rehabilitation units before (n = 137) and after (n = 168) protocol implementation over two 3-month periods. Focus groups were conducted examining nursing staff's experiences with such a protocol. Findings revealed that although implementation of the CMP did not reduce constipation rates among older patients, the average number of incidences of constipation per patient was reduced after implementation of the protocol. More importantly, it resulted in more due diligence by staff regarding patients' bowel patterns as well as improved bowel care documentation. Findings and recommendations extend current literature and have practical implications for nurses interested in improving management of patients' bowel care. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].
    Journal of Gerontological Nursing 05/2014; 40(8):1-10. · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Irritable bowel syndrome is a heterogeneous disease with a complex underlying pathophysiology and multiple symptoms – that is, clinical manifestation patterns. As such, management of irritable bowel syndrome requires a flexible approach tailored to the individual patient. This article reviews rational, evidence-based management strategy and treatment options for this variable condition.
    Expert Review of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 01/2014; 7(5s1). · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic constipation is a frequently encountered disorder in clinical practice. Most constipated patients benefit from standard medical approaches. However, current therapies may fail in a proportion of patients. These patients deserve better evaluation and thorough investigations before their labeling as refractory to treatment. Indeed, several cases of apparent refractoriness are actually due to misconceptions about constipation, poor basal evaluation (inability to recognize secondary causes of constipation, use of constipating drugs) or inadequate therapeutic regimens. After a careful re-evaluation that takes into account the above factors, a certain percentage of patients can be defined as being actually resistant to first-line medical treatments. These subjects should firstly undergo specific diagnostic examination to ascertain the subtype of constipation. The subsequent therapeutic approach should be then tailored according to their underlying dysfunction. Slow transit patients could benefit from a more robust medical treatment, based on stimulant laxatives (or their combination with osmotic laxatives, particularly over the short-term), enterokinetics (such as prucalopride) or secretagogues (such as lubiprostone or linaclotide). Patients complaining of obstructed defecation are less likely to show a response to medical treatment and might benefit from biofeedback, when available. When all medical treatments prove to be unsatisfactory, other approaches may be attempted in selected patients (sacral neuromodulation, local injection of botulinum toxin, anterograde continence enemas), although with largely unpredictable outcomes. A further although irreversible step is surgery (subtotal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis or stapled transanal rectal resection), which may confer some benefit to a few patients with refractoriness to medical treatments.
    World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics. 05/2014; 5(2):77-85.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 1, 2014