14781-koppen

160 Chapter 7 Propagating motor patterns At least one type of propagating motor pattern was identified in each of the children (Table 1). The average count, velocity, amplitude, and extent of propagation of each type of propagating motor pattern are shown in Table 2. Apparent non-propagating and random pressure events were also recorded in all children (Figure 3A). In children, the meal did not significantly increase any parameter for any of the propagating motor patterns (Figure 4; Table 2). Prior to the meal, there was no significant difference among the groups (children, healthy adults, and constipated adults) in the number of antegrade/retrograde cyclic motor patterns or antegrade/retrograde short-single motor patterns (Figure 4A–D). After the meal, there was a significant difference among the groups in the number of the retrograde cyclic motor pattern ( P < 0.0001). The postprandial increase in this motor pattern in healthy adults was not observed in either patient group. 13,17 Indeed, in eight (44%) children this motor pattern was not observed in the postprandial period (Table 2). In the remaining 10 children, it occurred in small numbers (1-9/h; Figure 4B). As a result, there was a significantly greater number of the retrograde cyclic motor patterns in healthy adults (34.7 ± 45.8/h) compared with the children (3.1 ± 4.7/h; P < 0.0001). The number of this motor pattern did not differ between the constipated children and adults (3.1 ± 4.7/h vs 4.5 ± 5.6/h; P = 0.9). Theothernotabledifferencebetweenthegroupswas thenumberof long-singlepropagating motor patterns prior to the meal ( P = 0.0006; Figure 3 and 4E). This was due to a higher number of these motor patterns in children compared with both healthy and constipated adults. During the preprandial recording, the number of long-single propagating motor patterns in children (8.0 ± 13.3/h; range, 0-54/h; Figure 4E) was significantly greater than in healthy adults (0.4 ± 0.9/h; range, 0-3; P = 0.005) and in constipated adults (0.4 ± 0.7/h; range, 0-2; P = 0.003). The postprandial number of these motor patterns also differed among the three groups ( P = 0.04). Again the children (10.3 ± 15.6/h; range, 0-61/h; Figure 4E) had more of these motor patterns than either of the adult groups (health, 1.5 ± 1.8/h; range, 0-6/h; constipation, 1.8 ± 2.9/h; range, 0-10/h); however, with correction for multiple comparisons, no individual statistical difference was found. In one of the children (no. 16; Table 1), the long-single motor pattern continued at a frequency of ~1.2 cpm throughout the entire pre- and postprandial period (Figure 3B). No other propagating motor patterns were recorded in this child until the bisacodyl infusion (see below).