44Sacral extracorporeal magnetic stimulation is an effective treatment for pelvic floor dyssynergia; Comparative study with biofeedback therapy

Background: Recent development of extracorporeal magnetic stimulation (ECMS) which uses current‐changing magnetic fields allows the induction of electrical stimulation in the desired deep tissue. Recent study showed the sacral nerve stimulation reduces corticoanal excitability that may play a functional role in anal continence mechanisms. Preliminary study shows that ECMS of sacral nerve can modify pelvic floor function and expel rectal balloon in patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD). Aims: To evaluate the effect of ECMS compared with biofeedback therapy (BF) in patients with PFD. Methods and Materials: Thirty‐eight patients who fulfilled Rome II criteria for PFD by colon transit time and anorectal function tests, were randomly treated with 8 sessions of ECMS (2/weeks; n = 19) at prone position or BF (2/weeks; n = 19) at sitting position. Stimulation parameters were set at 50–80% of maximum intensity, 10 and 50 Hz frequency, 3 s burst length with 3 and 6 s off using arm‐typed stimulator (BioCom‐1000, Mcube Co., Korea). Symptom scores for constipation with/without anorectal function test were repeatedly measured after each treatment. Response was defined as 50% or more decreased symptom score after treatment (partial response: 30–50%, poor: <30%). Results: Fifteen patients (age 49.1 ± 13.4 years, mean ± SD; 4 men) completed 8 session of BF and 14 patients (54.5 ± 17.6 years, 3 men) completed 8 session of ECMS. Four patients of BF group discontinued treatment due to unsatisfactory therapeutic effect (n = 1) and withdrew consent (n = 3) and 5 patients of ECMS group discontinued treatment because of same reasons (n = 1, 4). Total symptom scores were significantly decreased after treatment of 8 session in both treatment groups (13.4 ± 6.6 vs. 4.3 ± 4.0 for BF, p = 0.009; 14.9 ± 5.6 vs. 3.4 ± 4.0 for ECMS, p < 0.001). Bowel movements per week were also significantly increased after treatment in both groups (median 2 vs. 7 for BF, p = 0.035; median 2 vs. 7 for ECMS, p = 0.008). Thirteen out of 15 patients showed response in BF group and 12 out of 14 showed good response in ECMS group. No adverse effects in both groups. Conclusions: ECMS is as effective as BF for the treatment of PFD. Long‐term effect of ECMS for the patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia need to be evaluated in the near future.