Encopresis

Abstract

Encopresis is the repeated passage of faeces into inappropriate places by a child past the age of reliable bowel control, conventionally four years; it is the clinical name for persistent soiling. The modern account divides it in two: in the commoner retentive form the child withholds stool until a hard mass accumulates, the rectal wall stretches and its sensation dulls, and soft stool leaks around the impaction unnoticed, so soiling is overflow, not wilful. In the less common non-retentive form, soiling occurs with no constipation and carries a heavier load of behavioural and emotional difficulty. It is a cognitive-behavioural as well as a gastrointestinal condition, comorbid with ADHD, and its mainstay treatments are behavioural: disimpaction and maintenance laxatives with a structured toileting routine. This article sets out its classification, the retentive cycle, pathophysiology, epidemiology, and treatment, with interactive demonstrations.

Keywords: encopresis, overflow soiling, functional constipation, faecal incontinence

What Encopresis Is

Encopresis is the repeated passing of stool into clothing or other inappropriate places in a child who is past the age at which bowel control is normally established. The qualifier matters: continence is a developmental achievement, and a toddler who is not yet reliably clean is not encopretic in the clinical sense. By convention the line is drawn at four years of developmental age, the point by which most children have attained bowel control, so that soiling after that age is counted as a sign rather than a stage (von Gontard, 2013). The term is used in psychiatry and in the DSM-5 classification of elimination disorders; paediatric gastroenterology, following the Rome IV criteria, prefers the descriptive label functional faecal incontinence, but the two name the same clinical picture (Hyams et al., 2016).

The single most important fact about encopresis is that most of it is not primarily a problem of the bowel's output but of its retention. In the large majority of children, soiling is overflow: stool is withheld until a hard mass builds up in the rectum, and soft or liquid stool from higher in the colon then leaks around the impaction and escapes involuntarily (Loening-Baucke, 1996). Because the leaking is passive and the rectal sensation is blunted, the child is often genuinely unaware it is happening, which is why soiling is read the way a clinician reads any functional sign: not as misbehaviour to be named and punished, but as evidence about how a child's colon, rectum, and toileting behaviour are working together.

The domain spans colonic and rectal physiology, the learning of continence, and the behaviour and emotion that surround the toilet. Table 1 sets out the principal ways encopresis is classified, the basis of each distinction, and why it matters for treatment; the mechanistic sections that follow take them up in turn.

Classification: Retentive and Non-Retentive

The clinical understanding of encopresis rests on a single pivotal distinction: whether the soiling is or is not driven by stool retention. The Rome IV criteria for paediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders fix the definitions every later study and guideline uses, separating functional constipation, in which overflow soiling is a feature, from non-retentive faecal incontinence, in which soiling occurs with no evidence of retention (Hyams et al., 2016). The DSM-5 draws the same line in psychiatric language, subtyping encopresis as with constipation and overflow incontinence or without, so that the two classifications agree on the fact that matters most (von Gontard, 2013).

Two distinctions do most of the work. The first is between retentive encopresis, in which soiling is overflow around a withheld faecal mass and constipation is present, and non-retentive encopresis, in which the child soils with a normal, unretained bowel. The distinction is not academic: the retentive child needs the impaction cleared and the colon kept empty, whereas laxatives are useless, even counterproductive, in the non-retentive child, whose problem is behavioural and emotional rather than mechanical (Rajindrajith et al., 2021; Rajindrajith et al., 2013). The second distinction is between primary encopresis, in which the child has never achieved a sustained period of faecal continence, and secondary encopresis, in which soiling returns after continence has been established; secondary onset prompts a search for a precipitant, most often an episode of painful defecation that begins a cycle of withholding, but sometimes a psychological stressor (von Gontard, 2013).

The Retentive Cycle

The organising idea of the common, retentive form is a self-reinforcing loop. It usually begins with a single episode of painful or frightening defecation, a hard stool, an anal fissure, a poorly timed toilet-training push, after which the child learns to associate the toilet with pain and starts to withhold. Withholding buys short-term relief but has a mechanical cost: stool accumulates in the rectum, water is reabsorbed from it, and the retained mass grows larger and harder, so that the next defecation is more painful still and the incentive to withhold is reinforced (Loening-Baucke, 1996).

The accumulation changes the rectum itself. As the faecal mass enlarges it distends the rectal wall, and chronic distension blunts the sensation that normally signals the urge to defecate, so that the child feels the need less and less and the mass grows unchecked. Once the rectum is loaded, soft or liquid stool from higher in the colon tracks down and leaks around the impaction, escaping through an anal sphincter whose tone is overwhelmed by the sheer volume behind it. This is the overflow soiling that brings the child to the clinic, and its two defining features, that it is involuntary and that the child does not feel it coming, both follow directly from the blunted rectal sensation of a chronically distended rectum (Rajindrajith et al., 2013; Mugie et al., 2011). Breaking the cycle is therefore the logic of treatment: clear the impaction, keep the rectum empty long enough for the stretched wall to recover its tone and sensation, and make defecation painless so that the learned withholding can be unlearned.

Pathophysiology and the Cognitive-Behavioural Dimension

What makes encopresis a topic for cognitive psychology, and not only for paediatric gastroenterology, is that its core mechanism and its core treatment are both behavioural. The retentive cycle is at bottom a piece of avoidance learning: a painful experience of defecation is followed by withholding, which is negatively reinforced by the short-term avoidance of pain, exactly the structure of any learned avoidance, and the clinical task is to extinguish that association and replace it with a positive toileting routine (Loening-Baucke, 1996). The non-retentive form is still more clearly behavioural, since there is no mechanical lesion to find; the soiling is bound up with the child's emotional life and self-regulation.

The comorbidity with psychiatric and behavioural disorders is the clearest cognitive link, and it is stronger in the non-retentive form. Children with faecal incontinence have elevated rates of behavioural and emotional problems, notably attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and oppositional symptoms, and this overlap is not merely the distress of soiling but part of a shared substrate of self-regulation and neurodevelopment (von Gontard et al., 2011). The link with ADHD matters for treatment as well as for understanding, because the behavioural programme that encopresis requires, scheduled toilet sits, consistent record-keeping, sustained reward, demands exactly the attention and routine that an inattentive child finds hardest to maintain. This is why contemporary assessment looks at behaviour and attention alongside the colon, and why the shame and secrecy that surround soiling, and their corrosive effect on a child's self-esteem, are treated as part of the condition rather than a side issue (Rajindrajith et al., 2021).

Epidemiology

Encopresis is common in early school age and becomes less so each year as continence is consolidated. A population survey put the prevalence at around four per cent at ages five to six, falling steadily through childhood, and found it markedly more common in boys than in girls (van der Wal et al., 2005). A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional defecation disorders places the worldwide prevalence of functional constipation in children at roughly one in ten and of non-retentive faecal incontinence at around one to two per cent, confirming that the retentive, constipation-associated form is by far the larger share of the clinical burden (Koppen et al., 2018). The broader epidemiology of childhood constipation tells the same story: constipation is one of the commonest reasons for a paediatric visit, and overflow soiling is one of its most frequent and most distressing complications (Mugie et al., 2011).

The course is better than the distress of the condition suggests, but it is not benign for everyone. Most children respond to treatment and become clean, but a substantial minority continue to have symptoms for years, and a prospective long-term follow-up found that a meaningful fraction of children treated for constipation and soiling still had bowel symptoms as adults (Bongers et al., 2010). This is why early, adequate treatment matters: a retentive cycle left to run entrenches the megarectum and the learned withholding, and the longer the rectum has been distended the longer it takes to recover, so that delay converts a treatable childhood problem into a persistent one.

Assessment and Treatment

Assessment is built to answer the pivotal question, retentive or non-retentive, because that dictates the treatment. The core tools are simple and clinical: a history that asks about the frequency and calibre of stools, painful defecation, withholding postures, and the onset of soiling; an abdominal and rectal examination that seeks the palpable faecal mass of impaction; and, where the picture is unclear, a plain record of bowel habit. A child with hard, infrequent stools, a palpable mass, and painless unnoticed soiling has the retentive form; a child who passes normal stools but soils has the non-retentive form, and the two are treated quite differently (Hyams et al., 2016). Both are functional diagnoses, so assessment also watches for the red flags of organic disease, delayed passage of meconium, failure to thrive, or a neurological sign, that would point instead to Hirschsprung disease, a spinal anomaly, or a metabolic cause and call for further investigation (Tabbers et al., 2014).

Treatment of the retentive form follows directly from the cycle. The joint ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN evidence-based guideline sets out the sequence: first disimpaction, clearing the retained mass with an oral or rectal regimen, then maintenance with a daily osmotic laxative to keep the rectum empty long enough for its stretched wall to recover tone and sensation, sustained for months rather than weeks (Tabbers et al., 2014). Onto this medical backbone is added a behavioural programme: scheduled toilet sitting after meals to exploit the gastrocolic reflex, positive reinforcement of sitting and of successful defecation, demystification of the problem for the child and family, and removal of blame. The evidence is that the combination beats either part alone: a meta-analysis found that adding behavioural intervention to medical care improved outcomes over medical care by itself (Freeman et al., 2014), and the Cochrane review of behavioural and cognitive interventions reached the same conclusion, that behavioural therapy combined with laxatives outperforms laxatives or behaviour alone (Brazzelli et al., 2011). The non-retentive form, having no impaction to clear, is treated behaviourally from the outset, with laxatives withheld because they do not help and may worsen the soiling.

Figure

Figure 1

The Retentive Cycle: How Withholding Produces Overflow Soiling

Interactive Demonstrations

The three demonstrations below make the core ideas manipulable. The first is a retentive-cycle simulator: set how strongly a child withholds and how painful defecation is, and watch stool accumulate in the rectum, the sensation threshold rise, and overflow soiling begin. The second is a retentive/non-retentive classifier that takes a child's profile and names the form and the treatment it points to. The third is a treatment-response curve that shows how the probability of continence rises over weeks under laxatives alone, behaviour alone, and the two combined.

Worked Example

Consider how a clinician decides whether a child's soiling is retentive overflow, the question that decides whether laxatives belong in the plan. The reasoning rests on the mechanics of accumulation. Suppose a six-year-old produces roughly sixty millilitres of stool a day. In a continent child the rectum signals the urge to defecate once it holds around one hundred millilitres, so stool is passed daily and never builds up. A withholding child defers that urge: holding for six days accumulates six times sixty, or three hundred and sixty millilitres, in the rectum, which is three-point-six times the volume that would normally have triggered defecation.

That degree of distension is the mechanism of overflow. A rectum stretched to more than three times its normal signalling volume loses the sensation of fullness, so the child feels no urge even as the mass grows, and soft stool from above tracks down and leaks around the impaction without being felt. Set this against the diagnostic threshold: the Rome IV criteria count a child who defecates twice a week or less as functionally constipated, and our withholding child, passing one large painful stool every several days, sits at or below that line. A child soiling on five days out of seven, more than seventy per cent of days, with hard infrequent stools and a palpable mass, therefore has retentive overflow, not a behavioural refusal, and the plan must begin by clearing the impaction and keeping the rectum empty, not by rewarding clean days alone.

The worked lesson is that a few simple quantities turn a distressing complaint into a mechanism and a treatment. An accumulated rectal volume several times the normal signalling threshold explains at once why the soiling is involuntary, why the child does not feel it, and why no amount of reward will stop it until the retained mass is cleared and the stretched rectum allowed to recover its tone (Tabbers et al., 2014; Loening-Baucke, 1996). The figures here are schematic, chosen to illustrate the mechanism rather than measured from any one child.

Discussion

Encopresis sits at the join of several disciplines. It is a gastrointestinal sign, the output of a colon and rectum loaded by chronic withholding; it is a problem of learning, a cycle of avoidance begun by a painful defecation and sustained by negative reinforcement; and it is a behavioural and emotional one, bound up with the child's self-regulation and, in the non-retentive form, with psychiatric comorbidity. The history of the field is the story of integrating these: the recognition that most soiling is overflow secondary to retention turned a shameful mystery into a mechanical and behavioural problem with a rational treatment, and the Rome IV and DSM-5 classifications gave a shared vocabulary in which the retentive and non-retentive forms could be told apart and treated accordingly.

The unifying theme is that soiling is usually a sign of retention and learning rather than of wilful misbehaviour, which is why demystification and the removal of blame are as much a part of treatment as the laxative, and why the behavioural programme works by rebuilding a positive relationship with the toilet rather than by punishing the accident. The comorbidities make the same point from the other side: the overlap with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ties the condition to the broader development of self-regulation, and the heavier behavioural load of the non-retentive form ties it to the child's emotional life. The open problems are those of prediction and persistence, which children will relapse, why a minority carry symptoms into adulthood, and how to sustain a long behavioural regimen in the very children who find routines hardest to keep.

Current Directions

The most active front is the sharpening of the pathophysiological account and its translation into better-targeted treatment. The modern synthesis of functional faecal incontinence has drawn the retentive and non-retentive forms more firmly apart, treating them as distinct conditions with different mechanisms, different comorbidity profiles, and different management, rather than as variants of one disorder (Rajindrajith et al., 2021). The direction of travel is toward matching treatment to the form identified at assessment, and toward understanding why some retentive children, once disimpacted, consolidate continence while others relapse.

A second direction is the consolidation of management into clear, evidence-based pathways, and the measurement of what actually works. The meta-analytic evidence that behavioural intervention adds to medical care, and the Cochrane finding that the combination of behavioural therapy and laxatives outperforms either alone, have pushed guidelines toward integrated programmes rather than drugs or behaviour in isolation (Freeman et al., 2014; Brazzelli et al., 2011). The emphasis throughout is on early, adequate treatment to prevent the entrenchment of the megarectum, and on durable continence rather than a temporary reduction in soiling as the mark of success.

Common Misconceptions

Soiling means the child is lazy, defiant, or doing it on purpose.

In the common retentive form the soiling is involuntary overflow around a withheld faecal mass, and the child's blunted rectal sensation means they often do not feel it happening; it is a mechanical and learned problem, not a wilful one (Loening-Baucke, 1996).

Encopresis is a problem of diarrhoea or a loose bowel.

The commonest cause is the opposite: chronic constipation with a hard retained mass, past which only the softest stool can leak; the liquid soiling is a sign of impaction above, not of a genuinely loose bowel (Rajindrajith et al., 2013).

The way to stop it is to reward clean days and punish accidents.

Reward and punishment alone cannot stop overflow soiling while an impaction remains; the retained mass must first be cleared and the rectum kept empty, and behavioural reinforcement then works alongside, not instead of, that medical step (Tabbers et al., 2014; Brazzelli et al., 2011).

A laxative is the right treatment for every soiling child.

Laxatives are the backbone of the retentive form but are useless, and may worsen matters, in the non-retentive child, whose soiling occurs with no constipation and is treated behaviourally; telling the two apart is the first task of assessment (Hyams et al., 2016; Rajindrajith et al., 2021).

Glossary

Key Researchers

Marc A. Benninga

(Amsterdam UMC). Paediatric gastroenterologist whose work defines the modern clinical account of functional constipation and functional faecal incontinence in children, and who is senior author of the systematic reviews and guidelines on which this article rests. ORCID · Faculty

Alexander von Gontard

(formerly Saarland University). Child and adolescent psychiatrist whose work established the psychiatric comorbidity of elimination disorders, the ADHD and behavioural associations that make encopresis a cognitive-behavioural as well as a gastrointestinal condition, and who authored the DSM-5 framing of the disorder. ORCID · Wikidata

Carlo Di Lorenzo

(Nationwide Children's Hospital). Paediatric gastroenterologist and co-author of the Rome IV paediatric criteria and the ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN functional-constipation guideline, a central figure in the diagnostic framework for retentive faecal incontinence. Faculty

Shaman Rajindrajith

(University of Colombo). Paediatrician whose reviews and meta-analyses established the epidemiology and the retentive/non-retentive split of functional faecal incontinence in children, the framework that organises this article. ORCID · Scholar

Frequently Asked Questions

What is encopresis?

It is the repeated passage of faeces into inappropriate places, such as clothing, by a child who is past the age of expected bowel control, conventionally four years of developmental age. It is the clinical name for persistent soiling.

Is the child doing it on purpose?

Usually not. In the common retentive form the soiling is involuntary overflow around a withheld faecal mass, and because the loaded rectum loses its sensation the child often does not feel it happening. It is a mechanical and learned problem, not deliberate.

What is the difference between retentive and non-retentive encopresis?

Retentive encopresis is soiling that overflows around a hard, withheld faecal mass, with constipation present; it is the common form and needs the impaction cleared. Non-retentive encopresis is soiling with a normal, unretained bowel; laxatives do not help and it is treated behaviourally.

Why does constipation cause soiling?

When stool is withheld, a hard mass builds up in the rectum, the rectal wall stretches and its sensation dulls, and soft or liquid stool from higher up leaks around the impaction and escapes involuntarily. The soiling is a sign of a blocked, overloaded rectum, not of a loose bowel.

How is retentive encopresis treated?

First the retained mass is cleared by disimpaction, then a daily laxative is given for months to keep the rectum empty while its stretched wall recovers, and alongside this a behavioural routine of scheduled toilet sitting and positive reinforcement is used. The combination works better than either part alone.

Is encopresis linked to ADHD?

Yes. Children with faecal incontinence have elevated rates of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and other behavioural problems, especially in the non-retentive form, and inattention also makes the demanding toileting routine harder to sustain.

What is the difference between primary and secondary encopresis?

Primary encopresis means the child has never achieved sustained faecal continence and is usually developmental. Secondary encopresis means soiling has returned after a period of continence, which prompts a search for a trigger such as an episode of painful defecation or a stressful change.

Will a child grow out of it?

Most children respond to treatment and become clean, and prevalence falls through childhood. But a retentive cycle left untreated can entrench itself, and a minority carry bowel symptoms into adulthood, so early and adequate treatment matters.

References

Bongers, M. E. J., van Wijk, M. P., Reitsma, J. B., & Benninga, M. A. (2010). Long-term prognosis for childhood constipation: Clinical outcomes in adulthood. Pediatrics, 126(1), e156–e162. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1009

Brazzelli, M., Griffiths, P. V., Cody, J. D., & Tappin, D. (2011). Behavioural and cognitive interventions with or without other treatments for the management of faecal incontinence in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (12), CD002240. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002240.pub4

Freeman, K. A., Riley, A., Duke, D. C., & Fu, R. (2014). Systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions for fecal incontinence with constipation. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(8), 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsu039

Hyams, J. S., Di Lorenzo, C., Saps, M., Shulman, R. J., Staiano, A., & van Tilburg, M. (2016). Functional disorders: Children and adolescents. Gastroenterology, 150(6), 1456–1468. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.015

Koppen, I. J. N., Vriesman, M. H., Saps, M., Rajindrajith, S., Shi, X., van Etten-Jamaludin, F. S., ... Benninga, M. A. (2018). Prevalence of functional defecation disorders in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Pediatrics, 198, 121–130.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.02.029

Loening-Baucke, V. (1996). Encopresis and soiling. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 43(1), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-3955(05)70406-5

Mugie, S. M., Benninga, M. A., & Di Lorenzo, C. (2011). Epidemiology of constipation in children and adults: A systematic review. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 25(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2010.12.010

Rajindrajith, S., Devanarayana, N. M., & Benninga, M. A. (2013). Review article: Faecal incontinence in children—epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation and management. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 37(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12103

Rajindrajith, S., Devanarayana, N. M., Thapar, N., & Benninga, M. A. (2021). Functional fecal incontinence in children: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, evaluation, and management. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 72(6), 794–801. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000003056

Tabbers, M. M., DiLorenzo, C., Berger, M. Y., Faure, C., Langendam, M. W., Nurko, S., ... Benninga, M. A. (2014). Evaluation and treatment of functional constipation in infants and children: Evidence-based recommendations from ESPGHAN and NASPGHAN. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 58(2), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000000266

van der Wal, M. F., Benninga, M. A., & Hirasing, R. A. (2005). The prevalence of encopresis in a multicultural population. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 40(3), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MPG.0000149964.77418.27

von Gontard, A., Baeyens, D., Van Hoecke, E., Warzak, W. J., & Bachmann, C. (2011). Psychological and psychiatric issues in urinary and fecal incontinence. The Journal of Urology, 185(4), 1432–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.051

von Gontard, A. (2013). The impact of DSM-5 and guidelines for assessment and treatment of elimination disorders. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(Suppl 1), S61–S67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-012-0363-9