Anal signs of child sexual abuse: a case–control study

BMC Pediatrics

Charlotte M Wright¹  Christopher J Hobbs² 

[1]PEACH Unit, School of Medicine, MVLS College, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

[2]Yorkshire Medicolegal Chambers, Albion Mills, Albion Road, Greengates, Bradford BD10 9TQ, UK

关键词: Community child health;    Forensic medicine;    Sexual;    Child abuse;   

Others  :  1138846
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-14-128

 received in 2013-08-20, accepted in 2014-05-16,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is uncertainty about the nature and specificity of physical signs following anal child sexual abuse. The study investigates the extent to which physical findings discriminate between children with and without a history of anal abuse.

Methods

Retrospective case note review in a paediatric forensic unit.

Cases: all eligible cases from1990 to 2007 alleging anal abuse.

Controls: all children examined anally from 1998 to 2007 with possible physical abuse or neglect with no identified concern regarding sexual abuse. Fisher’s exact test (two-tailed) was performed to ascertain the significance of differences for individual signs between cases and controls. To explore the potential role of confounding, logistic regression was used to produce odds ratios adjusted for age and gender.

Results

A total of 184 cases (105 boys, 79 girls), average age 98.5 months (range 26 to 179) were compared with 179 controls (94 boys, 85 girls) average age 83.7 months (range 35–193). Of the cases 136 (74%) had one or more signs described in anal abuse, compared to 29 (16%) controls. 79 (43%) cases and 2 (1.1%) controls had >1 sign. Reflex anal dilatation (RAD) and venous congestion were seen in 22% and 36% of cases but <1% of controls (likelihood ratios (LR) 40, 60 respectively), anal fissure in 14% cases and 1.1% controls (LR 13), anal laxity in 27% cases and 3% controls (LR 10).

Novel signs seen significantly more commonly in cases were anal fold changes, swelling and twitching. Erythema, swelling and fold changes were seen most commonly within 7 days of last reported contact; RAD, laxity, venous congestion, fissure and twitching were observed up to 6 months after the alleged assault.

Conclusions

Anal findings are more common in children alleging anal abuse than in those presenting with physical abuse or neglect with no concern about sexual abuse. Multiple signs are rare in controls and support disclosed anal abuse.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hobbs and Wright; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hobbs CJ, Hanks HGI, Wynne JM: Clinical aspects of Child Sexual Abuse. Churchill Livingstone Edinburgh; 1999. [Child Abuse and Neglect: A Clinicians’ Handbook]
• [2]Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine: Paediatric forensic examinations in relation to possible child sexual abuse. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 2007.
• [3]Adams JA, Kaplan R, Starling SP, Mehta NH, Finkel MA, Botash NS, Kellogg ND, Shapiro RA: Guidelines for medical care for children who may have been sexually abused. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2007, 20(30):163-172.
• [4]The Physical signs of Child Sexual Abuse: An evidence based review and guidance for best practice. London: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 2008.
• [5]Bruni M: Anal findings in sexual abuse of children (a descriptive study). J Forensic Sci 2003, 48(6):1343-1346.
• [6]Muram D: Anal and perianal abnormalities in prepubertal victims of sexual abuse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989, 161(2):278-281.
• [7]Reinhart MA: Sexually abused boys. Child Abuse Negl 1987, 11(2):229-235.
• [8]Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: Buggery in childhood - a common syndrome of child abuse. Lancet 1986, ii:792-796.
• [9]Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: Sexual abuse of English boys and girls: the importance of anal examination. Child Abuse Negl 1989, 13(2):195-210.
• [10]Pierce AM: Anal fissures and anal scars in anal abuse—are they significant? Pediatr Surg Int 2004, 20:334-338.
• [11]Myhre AK, Adams JA, Kaufhold M, Davis JL, Suresh P, Kuelbs CL: Anal findings in children with and without probable anal penetration: a retrospective study of 1115 children referred for suspected sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 2013, 37:465-474.
• [12]Spencer MJ, Dunklee P: Sexual abuse of boys. Childhood sexual abuse: role of the family physician. Pediatrics 1986, 78:133-138.
• [13]McCann J, Voris J: Perianal injuries resulting from sexual abuse: a longitudinal study. Pediatrics 1993, 91(2):390-397.
• [14]Berenson AB, Somma-Garcia A, Barnett S: Perianal findings in infants 18 months of age or younger. Pediatrics 1993, 91:838-840.
• [15]Myhre AK, Bemtzen K, Bratlid D: Perianal anatomy in non-abused preschool children. Acta Paediatr 2001, 90(11):1321-1328.
• [16]McCann J, Voris J, Simon M, Wells R: Perianal findings in prepubertal children selected for non-abuse: a descriptive study. Child Abuse Negl 1989, 13:179-193.
• [17]Agnarsson U, Warde C, McCarthy G, Evans N: Perianal appearances associated with constipation. Arch Dis Child 1990, 13:1231-1234.
• [18]Clayden GS: Reflex anal dilatation associated with severe chronic constipation in children. Arch Dis Child 1988, 63(7):832-836.
• [19]Hey F, Buchanan PC, Littlewood JM: Differential diagnosis in child sexual abuse. Lancet 1987, ii:283.
• [20]Vickers D, Morris K, Coulthard MG, Eastham EJ: Anal Signs in haemolytic uraemic syndrome. Lancet 1988, i:998.
• [21]Reardon W, Hughes HE, Green SH, Lloyd Woolley V, Harper PS: Anal abnormalities in childhood myotonic dystrophy: a possible source of confusion in child sexual abuse. Arch Dis Child 1992, 67:527-528.
• [22]Watkeys JM, Price LD, Upton PM, Maddox A: The timing of medical examination following an allegation of sexual abuse: is this an emergency? Arch Dis Child 2008, 93:851-856.
• [23]Child Protection Companion. London: Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health; 2006.
• [24]American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children: Glossary of terms and the interpretations of findings for child sexual abuse evidentiary examinations. Am Professional Soc on the Abuse of Children 1998.
• [25]Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004, 329(7458):168-169.
• [26]Martial: Epigrams. Cambridge Mass; 1968. [vol 2 Kerr]
• [27]Summit R: Causes, Consequences, Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Assault against Children chapter 2 pp 47-97. In “Assault against children, why it happens and how to stop it”. Edited by Meier JH. London and Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis; 1985.
• [28]Butler Sloss E (Ed): Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 London: HMSO; 1988.
• [29]Physical signs of Sexual Abuse. 1st edition. The Royal College of Physicians of London; 1991.
• [30]Physical signs of Sexual Abuse. 2nd edition. The Royal College of Physicians of London; 1997.
• [31]Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM: The sexually abused battered child. Arch Dis Child 1990, 65(4):423-427.
• [32]Palusci VJ, Cox EO, Shatz EM, Schultze JM: Urgent medical assessment after child abuse. Child Abuse Negl 2006, 30(4):367-380.
• [33]Adams JA, Ahmad M, Phillips P: Anogenital findings and hymenal diameter in children referred for sexual abuse examination. Adolesc Paed Gynaecol 1988, 1:123-127.
• [34]Roane TH: Male victims of sexual abuse: a case review within a child protective team. Child Welfare 1992, 71(3):231-239.
• [35]Adams JA, Girardin B, Faugno D: Adolescent sexual assault: documentation of acute injuries using photo-colposcopy. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2001, 14(4):175-180.
• [36]Adams JA, Harper K, Knudson S, Revilla J: Examination findings in legally confirmed child sexual abuse: it’s normal to be normal. Pediatrics 1994, 94:310-317.
• [37]Emans SJ, Woods ER, Flagg NT, Freeman A: Genital findings in sexually abused, symptomatic and asymptomatic, girls. Pediatrics 1987, 79(5):778-785.
• [38]Heppenstall-Heger A, McConnell G, Ticson L, Guerra L, Lister J, Zaragoza T: Healing patterns in anogenital injuries: a longitudinal study of injuries associated with sexual abuse, accidental injuries, or genital surgery in the preadolescent child. Pediatrics 2003, 112(4):829-837.
• [39]Heger A, Ticson L, Velasquez O, Bernier R: Children referred for possible sexual abuse: medical findings in 2384 children. Child Abuse Negl 2002, 26(6-7):645-659.