Article

Biofeedback benefits only patients with outlet dysfunction, not patients with isolated slow transit constipation.

Divisione di Riabilitazione Gastroenterologica, Universitá di Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera di Verone, Centro Ospedaliero Clinicizzato, Valeggio sul Mincio, Verona, Italy.
Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 13.93). 08/2005; 129(1):86-97. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.05.015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Biofeedback is reported to be as effective for slow transit constipation as for pelvic floor dyssynergia and no more effective than education. We aimed to test the hypothesis that biofeedback benefits only patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia, describe the physiologic mechanism of treatment, and identify predictors of success.
Fifty-two patients (49 women; average age, 35 years), all with delayed whole gut transit, included 34 with pelvic floor dyssynergia, 12 with slow transit only, and 6 who met only 1 of 2 criteria for pelvic floor dyssynergia. All received 5 weekly biofeedback sessions directed at increasing rectal pressure and relaxing pelvic floor muscles during straining plus practice defecating a balloon. Patients were retested by questionnaire; symptom diary; balloon defecation; transit study at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months; and anorectal manometry at 1 and 6 months.
At 6 months, greater improvements were seen in pelvic floor dyssynergia compared with slow transit only; 71% versus 8% reported satisfaction ( P = .001), and 76% versus 8% reported >/=3 bowel movements per week ( P < .001). Improvements were maintained at 24 months of follow-up. Biofeedback eliminated dyssynergia in 91% and enabled 85% to defecate the balloon. Satisfaction was correlated with improved ability to defecate the balloon (rho = .73; P < .001), reductions in dyssynergia (rho = .69; P < .001), and increased rectal pressure during straining (rho = .36; P < .01). Success was predicted by pelvic floor dyssynergia, milder constipation, and less frequent abdominal pain at baseline.
Biofeedback is an effective treatment for pelvic floor dyssynergia but not slow transit constipation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
79 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: These guidelines summarize the definitions, diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses, and treatments of a group of benign disorders of anorectal function and/or structure. Disorders of function include defecation disorders, fecal incontinence, and proctalgia syndromes, whereas disorders of structure include anal fissure and hemorrhoids. Each section reviews the definitions, epidemiology and/or pathophysiology, diagnostic assessment, and treatment recommendations of each entity. These recommendations reflect a comprehensive search of all relevant topics of pertinent English language articles in PubMed, Ovid Medline, and the National Library of Medicine from 1966 to 2013 using appropriate terms for each subject. Recommendations for anal fissure and hemorrhoids lean heavily on adaptation from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Practice Parameters from the most recent published guidelines in 2010 and 2011 and supplemented with subsequent publications through 2013. We used systematic reviews and meta-analyses when available, and this was supplemented by review of published clinical trials.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 15 July 2014; doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.190.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 07/2014; 109(8). DOI:10.1038/ajg.2014.190 · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare biofeedback-guided pelvic floor exercise therapy (BFT) with the use of oral polyethylene glycol (PEG) for the treatment of obstructive defecation.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Rome II and III diagnostic criteria for dyssynergic defecation recommended the exclusion of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). This study determined the effect of biofeedback therapy on dyssynergic constipation in patients with or without IBS. This study was a nonrandomized, single blinded, semi experimental study. Dyssynergic defecation patients with and without IBS were asked to undergo biofeedback therapy 8 sessions. The defecation dynamics and balloon expulsion time were evaluated before, at the end and 1 month after the biofeedback therapy. IBS symptoms were graded using a 4-point Likert scale. Mann-Whitney U-test, Wilcoxon test and Friedman test were applied to analyze data using SPSS software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). After the biofeedback therapy, the IBS symptoms have been decreased significantly (the median of 2 before and 1 after therapy, P < 0.01). The biofeedback therapy significantly decreased the anismus index in IBS group by the mean of 0.75 ± 0.31, 0.28 ± 0.07 and 0.28 ± 0.06 in three phases, respectively. Similar results were found in non-IBS patients (the mean of 0.74 ± 0.32, 0.28 ± 0.08, 0.27 ± 0.08 in three phases, respectively). The symptoms of constipation (sensation of incomplete evacuation, difficult and painful defecation), defecation facilitative manual maneuver frequency, pelvic floor muscles resting amplitude and strain amplitude decreased and squeezing amplitude improved significantly after biofeedback therapy in both groups with and without IBS (P < 0.001). There were not significant differences between patients with and without IBS (P > 0.05) with respect to outcome. No complication was observed in treatment groups. Dyssynergic constipation patients with and without IBS will likely benefit from biofeedback therapy.