A combination of stimulant and softening laxatives was most likely to maintain normal bowel function at the lowest dose and least adverse effects. The mean final dose of lactulose was excessive for use in ill patients. Senna was associated with significantly more adverse effects than the other laxatives, mainly abdominal pain (P < 0.001). This model of constipation may provide a standardized means of assaying the clinical effectiveness of oral laxatives.

Bulk laxative plus senna (daily doses 14.8 g) produced more frequent (p < 0.05) bowel habits (4.5 vs. 2.2-1.9/week) than lactulose (daily doses 20.1 g). Both laxatives proved to be safe to use. Our study indicated bulk laxative plus senna to be more efficient in treating constipation in geriatric long-stay patients.

Gut transit time was assessed by dye and radio-opaque marker methods. 2 It was possible to demonstrate the effect of the anthracenes but not oxyphenisatin on gut transit time. 3 More sophisticated statistical techniques were required to demonstrate the retarding effect of the sympathomimetic amine and its reversal by senna. 4 Statistical analysis shows that assessment of intestinal transit time by dye or pellet methods gives identical information.

Laxative efficacy was analyzed through t test and analysis of variance. No difference was found between the laxatives in defecation-free intervals or in days with defecation. The final scores for general health status were similar in both groups. Given that the two treatments have similar efficacy and adverse effects, a recommendation is made for the use of senna because its cost is lower than lactulose.

The use of senna with docusate decreases time to first BM in those undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery compared with placebo. Subjects using senna with docusate are also significantly less likely to use magnesium citrate.

This is significantly better than the success rates of 51% and 59% achieved in White and Coloured controls treated with a placebo. Minor abdominal cramps occurred in some 13% of the patients treated with standardized senna, and in 4% of the controls given the placebo. There is no evidence to suggest that standardized senna has any effect whatsoever on a breast-fed baby if taken by the mother.

A combination of stimulant and softening laxatives was most likely to maintain normal bowel function at the lowest dose and least adverse effects. The mean final dose of lactulose was excessive for use in ill patients. Senna was associated with significantly more adverse effects than the other laxatives, mainly abdominal pain (P < 0.001). This model of constipation may provide a standardized means of assaying the clinical effectiveness of oral laxatives.

Bulk laxative plus senna (daily doses 14.8 g) produced more frequent (p < 0.05) bowel habits (4.5 vs. 2.2-1.9/week) than lactulose (daily doses 20.1 g). Both laxatives proved to be safe to use. Our study indicated bulk laxative plus senna to be more efficient in treating constipation in geriatric long-stay patients.

Gut transit time was assessed by dye and radio-opaque marker methods. 2 It was possible to demonstrate the effect of the anthracenes but not oxyphenisatin on gut transit time. 3 More sophisticated statistical techniques were required to demonstrate the retarding effect of the sympathomimetic amine and its reversal by senna. 4 Statistical analysis shows that assessment of intestinal transit time by dye or pellet methods gives identical information.

Laxative efficacy was analyzed through t test and analysis of variance. No difference was found between the laxatives in defecation-free intervals or in days with defecation. The final scores for general health status were similar in both groups. Given that the two treatments have similar efficacy and adverse effects, a recommendation is made for the use of senna because its cost is lower than lactulose.

Mechanical preparation before colonic or rectal resection with senna is better and easier than with polyethylene glycol and should be proposed in patients undergoing colonic or rectal resection, especially patients with stenosis.

Sodium Phosphate solution gave better bowel preparation, with the same compliance, than either senna or Polyethylene solution. In constipated patients Sodium Phosphate showed good efficacy resulting in good cleansing rates similar to that of non-constipated patients. The poor results obtained by Polyethylene were related to the little amount of solution taken even if associated to Bisacodyl.

The efficacy of senna is not equivalent to sodium phosphate solution in bowel preparation for colonoscopy, but senna may be considered an alternative laxative.

The regimen combining half doses of PEG-ES and senna provides high-quality bowel preparation and acceptable patient tolerance, with less abdominal pain compared with high-dose senna.

The use of senna with docusate decreases time to first BM in those undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery compared with placebo. Subjects using senna with docusate are also significantly less likely to use magnesium citrate.

This is significantly better than the success rates of 51% and 59% achieved in White and Coloured controls treated with a placebo. Minor abdominal cramps occurred in some 13% of the patients treated with standardized senna, and in 4% of the controls given the placebo. There is no evidence to suggest that standardized senna has any effect whatsoever on a breast-fed baby if taken by the mother.

A combination of stimulant and softening laxatives was most likely to maintain normal bowel function at the lowest dose and least adverse effects. The mean final dose of lactulose was excessive for use in ill patients. Senna was associated with significantly more adverse effects than the other laxatives, mainly abdominal pain (P < 0.001). This model of constipation may provide a standardized means of assaying the clinical effectiveness of oral laxatives.

Bulk laxative plus senna (daily doses 14.8 g) produced more frequent (p < 0.05) bowel habits (4.5 vs. 2.2-1.9/week) than lactulose (daily doses 20.1 g). Both laxatives proved to be safe to use. Our study indicated bulk laxative plus senna to be more efficient in treating constipation in geriatric long-stay patients.

Gut transit time was assessed by dye and radio-opaque marker methods. 2 It was possible to demonstrate the effect of the anthracenes but not oxyphenisatin on gut transit time. 3 More sophisticated statistical techniques were required to demonstrate the retarding effect of the sympathomimetic amine and its reversal by senna. 4 Statistical analysis shows that assessment of intestinal transit time by dye or pellet methods gives identical information.

Laxative efficacy was analyzed through t test and analysis of variance. No difference was found between the laxatives in defecation-free intervals or in days with defecation. The final scores for general health status were similar in both groups. Given that the two treatments have similar efficacy and adverse effects, a recommendation is made for the use of senna because its cost is lower than lactulose.

Mechanical preparation before colonic or rectal resection with senna is better and easier than with polyethylene glycol and should be proposed in patients undergoing colonic or rectal resection, especially patients with stenosis.

Sodium Phosphate solution gave better bowel preparation, with the same compliance, than either senna or Polyethylene solution. In constipated patients Sodium Phosphate showed good efficacy resulting in good cleansing rates similar to that of non-constipated patients. The poor results obtained by Polyethylene were related to the little amount of solution taken even if associated to Bisacodyl.

The efficacy of senna is not equivalent to sodium phosphate solution in bowel preparation for colonoscopy, but senna may be considered an alternative laxative.

The regimen combining half doses of PEG-ES and senna provides high-quality bowel preparation and acceptable patient tolerance, with less abdominal pain compared with high-dose senna.

The use of senna with docusate decreases time to first BM in those undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery compared with placebo. Subjects using senna with docusate are also significantly less likely to use magnesium citrate.

This is significantly better than the success rates of 51% and 59% achieved in White and Coloured controls treated with a placebo. Minor abdominal cramps occurred in some 13% of the patients treated with standardized senna, and in 4% of the controls given the placebo. There is no evidence to suggest that standardized senna has any effect whatsoever on a breast-fed baby if taken by the mother.