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.

  • [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.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Defecatory disorders (DD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are common conditions. DD are primarily attributable to impaired rectoanal function during defecation or structural defects. FI is caused by one or more disturbances of anorectal continence mechanisms. Altered stool consistency may be the primary cause or may unmask anorectal deficits in both conditions. Diagnosis and management requires a systematic approach beginning with a thorough clinical assessment. Symptoms do not reliably differentiate a DD from other causes of constipation such as slow or normal transit constipation. Therefore, all constipated patients who do not adequately respond to medical therapy should be considered for anorectal testing to identify a DD. Preferably, two tests indicating impaired defecation are required to diagnose a DD. Patients with DD, or those for whom testing is not available and the clinical suspicion is high, should be referred for biofeedback-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Patients with FI should be managed with lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy for bowel disturbances, and management of local anorectal problems (e.g., hemorrhoids). When these measures are not beneficial, anorectal testing and pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy should be considered. Sacral nerve stimulation or perianal bulking could be considered in patients who have persistent symptoms despite optimal management of bowel disturbances and pelvic floor retraining.
    Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 10/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11938-014-0033-8
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anorectal disorders such as dyssynergic defecation, fecal incontinence, levator ani syndrome, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome are common, and affect both the adult and pediatric populations. Although they are treated with several treatment approaches, over the last two decades, biofeedback therapy using visual and verbal feedback techniques has emerged as an useful option. Because it is safe, it is commonly recommended. However, the clinical efficacy of biofeedback therapy in adults and children is not clearly known, and there is a lack of critical appraisal of the techniques used and the outcomes of biofeedback therapy for these disorders. The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility convened a task force to examine the indications, study performance characteristics, methodologies used, and the efficacy of biofeedback therapy, and to provide evidence-based recommendations. Based on the strength of evidence, biofeedback therapy is recommended for the short-term and long-term treatment of constipation with dyssynergic defecation (Level I, Grade A), and for the treatment of fecal incontinence (Level II, Grade B). Biofeedback therapy may be useful in the short-term treatment of Levator Ani Syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level II, Grade B), and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level III, Grade C), but the evidence is fair. Evidence does not support the use of biofeedback for the treatment of childhood constipation (Level 1, Grade D). © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    Neurogastroenterology and Motility 04/2015; DOI:10.1111/nmo.12520 · 3.42 Impact Factor