Abnormal rectoanal function in children recovered from chronic constipation and encopresis

It is unknown if abnormal anal sphincter function as assessed by anorectal manometry is still present years after resolution of chronic constipation and encopresis. Twenty healthy controls, 12 children with constipation but no encopresis, and 20 children with chronic constipation and encopresis underwent anorectal manometric testing, using intraluminal pressure transducers and a balloon for rectal distention. Anorectal measurements were repeated in the 20 constipated and encopretic children 2.5-4 yr after treatment began; 11 children had recovered for at least 1 yr. The mean values of anal resting tone and of anal pull-through pressure were lower in the constipated and encopretic children than in the 20 control children (p less than 0.003). Percent relaxation of the rectosphincteric reflex after rectal distention of 30 and 60 ml was lower in constipated children with and without encopresis than in controls (p less than 0.003), whereas the means of rectosphincteric reflex threshold were comparable in the three groups of children. Three years after initiation of treatment with milk of magnesia, high-fiber diet, and bowel training techniques, the mean values of anal resting tone, anal pull-through pressure, and percent relaxation of rectosphincteric reflex remained significantly lower in both recovered and nonrecovered constipated and encopretic patients compared with controls. It was suggested that the underlying cause of chronic constipation is the decreased ability of the internal anal sphincter to relax with rectal distention, and the hypotonia of the anal canal is responsible for the encopresis. Abnormal anorectal functions were still present years after cessation of treatment and recovery and put the recovered patient at risk for recurrence of chronic constipation and encopresis.     

Biofeedback is superior to laxatives for normal transit constipation due to pelvic floor dyssynergia

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Uncontrolled trials suggest biofeedback is an effective treatment for pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD), a type of constipation defined by paradoxical contraction, or inability to relax, pelvic floor muscles during defecation. The aim was to compare biofeedback to laxatives plus education. METHODS: Patients with chronic, severe PFD were first treated with 20 g/day fiber plus enemas or suppositories up to twice weekly. Nonresponders were randomized to either 5 weekly biofeedback sessions (n = 54) or polyethylene glycol 14.6-29.2 g/day plus 5 weekly counseling sessions in preventing constipation (n = 55). Satisfaction with treatment, symptoms of constipation, and pelvic floor physiology were assessed 6 and 12 months later. The biofeedback group was also assessed at 24 months. Laxative-treated patients were instructed to increase the dose of polyethylene glycol from 14.6 to 29.2 g/day after 6 months. RESULTS: At 6 months, major improvement was reported by 43 of 54 (80%) biofeedback patients vs 12 of 55 (22%) laxative-treated patients (P < .001). Biofeedback's benefits were sustained at 12 and 24 months. Biofeedback also produced greater reductions in straining, sensations of incomplete evacuation and anorectal blockage, use of enemas and suppositories, and abdominal pain (all P < .01). Stool frequency increased in both groups. All biofeedback-treated patients reporting major improvement were able to relax the pelvic floor and defecate a 50-mL balloon at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Five biofeedback sessions are more effective than continuous polyethylene glycol for treating PFD, and benefits last at least 2 years. Biofeedback should become the treatment of choice for this common and easily diagnosed type of constipation.     

Biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation

INTRODUCTION Chronic constipation is a common self-reported bowel symptom that affects 2%-30% of people in Western countries and has considerable impact on health expenses and quality of life[1]. Most patients respond either to fiber- fluid supplementatio…     

Outpatient protocol for biofeedback therapy of pelvic floor outlet obstruction

Pelvic floor outlet obstruction is a rare cause of severe constipation. Anal myectomy, subtotal colectomy, and medical therapy have limited success. The purpose of this study was to develop a short outpatient treatment using biofeedback techniques. Nine patients with severe constipation and straining resulting from pelvic floor outlet obstruction underwent complete investigation of the pelvic floor musculature and anal sphincter mechanism. Patients were unable to expel a 60-cc rectal balloon and had nonrelaxing puborectalis on defecography. The treatment protocol utilized anal surface electromyography to document improper straining and retrain pelvic floor muscles to relax during defecation. Sensory retraining with a rectal balloon, behavioral relaxation techniques, and defecation of simulated stool using a 120-cc Metamucil^® (Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH) slurry in the rectum allowed re-establishment of normal defecation in all nine patients. Repeat training was required in three patients during follow-up. Treatment of pelvic floor outlet obstruction with outpatient retraining techniques is possible.Read at the meeting of The American College of Gastroenterology, San Francisco, California, October 1990.     

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome in children

SRUS is a rare condition in children, which usually presents with a symptom complex of rectal bleeding, passage of mucus and straining on defecation, tenesmus, perineal and abdominal pain, sensation of incomplete defecation, constipation and rectal prolapse. The underlying etiology of SRUS is not fully understood but it is likely to be secondary to ischemic changes in the rectum associated with paradoxical contraction of pelvic floor and external anal sphincter muscles and rectal prolapse. Conservative measures like high intake of fluids and fibers, laxatives, biofeedback and behavior modification therapy may be beneficial for treatment of constipation. Excision of rectal ulcer and surgery of overt rectal prolapse, however, may be required in refractory cases not responding to conservative treatments. A therapeutic role for botulinum toxin injection into the external anal sphincter for treatment of SRUS associated with constipation and paradoxical contraction of pelvic floor and external anal sphincter muscles in children, may exist.     

Factors determining outcome in children with chronic constipation and faecal soiling.

To evaluate factors which might contribute to treatment failure in children with chronic constipation and soiling, we evaluated the history, physical findings, defecation dynamics, and anorectal function in 97 patients. We treated them with milk of magnesia, high fibre diet, and bowel training techniques and evaluated outcome at one year when 43% had recovered. Recovery rates were similar for boys and girls. Fifty seven per cent of the patients had not recovered. This group at the outset had more frequent soiling episodes, more severe constipation, were less likely to defecate water filled rectal balloons and to relax the external sphincter during defecation. In general girls had more severe constipation, abdominal pain, and a previous urinary tract infection than boys. Girls were more compliant during treatment and had less frequent soiling episodes at one year. Stepwise logistic regression showed that severe constipation, abnormal contraction of the external sphincter and pelvic floor during attempted defecation, and inability to defecate the 100 ml balloon in less than or equal to 1 min was significantly related to treatment failure. Defecation of smaller balloons, volumes for threshold of rectal sensation, critical volume and rectal contraction, and compliance with treatment could not predict treatment failure.     

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is an effective treatment for pelvic floor dyssynergia but not slow transit constipation.     

Defecation disorders: An important subgroup of functional constipation, its pathophysiology, evaluation and treatment with biofeedback.

Functional defecation disorders are common and affect approximately 50% of patients with chronic constipation. The etiology of functional defecation disorders is not well known, but several pathophysiologic mechanisms have been described, including failure of rectoanal coordination, paradoxical anal contraction or insufficient relaxation of anal sphincter during defecation and impairment of rectal sensation as well as secondary slowing of colonic transit. Symptoms alone are inadequate to distinguish patients with defecation disorders from those with other types of constipation. Detailed clinical evaluation and anorectal physiologic tests are required for definitive diagnosis. There is also a pathophysiological association between functional defecation disorders and other anorectal conditions such as solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Among the various treatment modalities, biofeedback therapy has emerged as an effective and specific treatment method for functional defecation disorders. The main goals of biofeedback therapy are to relax the pelvic floor and anal sphincter muscles during defecation and to improve rectoanal coordination and sensory perception. Today, it is possible to diagnose most functional disorders of defecation and either effectively treat or ameliorate symptoms in a majority of these patients.     

Long-Term Study on the Effects of Visual Biofeedback and Muscle Training as a Therapeutic Modality in Pelvic Floor Dyssynergia and Slow-Transit Constipation

PURPOSE: Biofeedback training has been shown as an effective therapeutic measure in patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia, at least in the short term. Long-term effects have received less attention. Moreover, its effects in patients with slow-transit constipation have been scarcely investigated. This study was designed to assess in an objective way the medium- and long-term effects of biofeedback and muscle training in patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and slow-transit constipation. METHODS: Twenty-four patients (14 with pelvic floor dyssynergia and 10 with slow transit) meeting the Rome II criteria for constipation, and unresponsive to conventional treatments, entered the study. Clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry were performed basally and three months after a cycle of electromyographic biofeedback and muscle training; moreover, a clinical interview was obtained one year after biofeedback. Patients with slow-transit constipation also had colonic transit time reassessed at one year. RESULTS: Clinical variables (abdominal pain, straining, number of evacuations/week, use of laxatives) all significantly improved in both groups at three-month assessment; anorectal manometric variables remained unchanged, apart from a significant decrease of sensation threshold in the pelvic floor dyssynergia group and of the maximum rectal tolerable volume in the slow-transit constipation group. At one-year control, 50 percent of patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia still maintained a beneficial effect from biofeedback, whereas only 20 percent of those complaining of slow-transit constipation did so. Moreover, the latter displayed no improvement in colonic transit time. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia are likely to have continued benefit from biofeedback training in the time course, whereas its effects on slow-transit constipation seems to be maximal in the short-term course.     

The spastic pelvic floor syndrome

In 12 patients with constipation, it was detected by defecography that, during straining, the anorectal angle did not increase, but remained at 90 degrees. These patients were unable to excrete barium. since the anorectal angle is a measure of activity of the pelvic floor musculature, a dysfunction of this muscle was suspected. In order to determine whether this abnormality represented a true functional disorder or just a voluntary contraction of the pelvic floor muscles due to embarrassment, we performed electromyographic, manometric, and transit time studies in these patients. The electromyographic studies confirmed the persistent contraction during defecation straining. Both manometry and electromyography revealed normal muscle function at rest and during squeezing. Colonic transit time studies demonstrated rectal retention in nine of 12 patients, indicating outlet obstruction. Persistent contraction of the pelvic floor muscles, for which we propose the name “spastic pelvic floor syndrome,” represents a functional disorder of normal pelvic floor muscles, causing a functional outlet obstruction. Read at the meeting of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, San Diego, California, May 5 to 10, 1985.     

Biofeedback provides long term benefit for patients with intractable, slow and normal transit constipation

Background—Many patients with idiopathicconstipation do not respond to conventional medical treatments.Recently biofeedback has been proposed as an alternative treatment butthe long term results, and which patients benefit, are unknown.Treatment has usually been restricted to patients with normal colonictransit and impaired pelvic floor coordination on straining.
Aims—To determine the efficacy and long termoutcome of biofeedback treatment in idiopathic constipation.
Methods—One hundred consecutive contactablepatients who had completed a course of biofeedback more than 12 monthspreviously were identified. Pretreatment details of bowel function andsymptoms, whole gut transit time, and anorectal physiological testing,which had been previously prospectively collected, were collated.Follow up consisted of structured interview. Sixty five per cent had slow transit and 59% had paradoxical pelvic floor contraction on straining.
Results—Median follow up was 23 months (range12-44). On long term follow up 55% felt that biofeedback had helpedand 57% felt their constipation was improved. There was a significant reduction in need to strain, abdominal pain, bloating, and oral laxative use. Spontaneous bowel frequency was significantly improved bytreatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, males and females,and those with and without paradoxical contraction of the analsphincter on straining, benefited equally from treatment. Anorectaltesting did not predict outcome.
Conclusion—This study suggests that biofeedbackis an effective long term treatment for the majority of patients withidiopathic constipation unresponsive to traditional treatments. Pelvicfloor abnormalities and transit time should not form selection criteria for treatment.

Keywords:constipation; biofeedback; follow up; laxatives; transit time

     

生物反馈训练治疗盆底肌痉挛综合症的临床疗效观察

目的探讨生物反馈训练治疗盆底肌痉挛综合症的临床疗效,并对便秘患者进行主观生存质量评价和客观肛门直肠测压检测。 方法将新疆医科大学第一附属医院便秘诊疗门诊收治的诊断明确的盆底肌痉挛综合症患者按患者意愿分为生物反馈训练治疗组和骶神经刺激治疗组,每组患者40例,对两组患者至少随访3个月,并使用生存质量自评表PAC-QOL中文版对入组病人进行生理、社会心理、担忧及满意度四方面进行主观评价和肛门直肠测压的客观评价。 结果主观方面,与骶神经刺激治疗组相比,生物反馈训练治疗可明显改善便秘患者生理、社会心理、担忧及满意度,提高患者生活质量;客观方面,生物反馈训练治疗更能增加直肠感觉阈值,降低肛管静息压和肛管最大收缩压,改善排便困难症状。 结论生物反馈训练治疗可明显改善盆底肌痉挛综合症患者的便秘症状,提高便秘患者的生活质量。     

Controlled randomised trial of visual biofeedback versus muscle training without a visual display for intractable constipation.

Training to contract the abdominal muscles effectively and to relax the pelvic floor during defecation straining helps some patients with severe constipation. Hitherto all such training has used a visible or audible signal of sphincter muscle activity as a biofeedback method to assist in relaxation. A randomised controlled trial comparing the outcome of muscular training without any biofeedback device with the same training supplemented by an electromyographic (EMG) record visible to the patient is reported. Significant symptomatic improvement was noted and electromyographic measurements confirmed a decrease in pelvic floor muscle activity during defecation straining after treatment in both groups. The outcome was similar in the two treatment groups. Muscular coordination training using personal instruction and encouragement without a visual display is thus a potentially successful treatment suitable for outpatient use by paramedical personnel.     

Treatment of severe and intractable constipation

Opinion statement A careful clinical evaluation, exclusion of secondary causes (eg, colonic obstruction, metabolic conditions [hypothyroidism, hypercalcemia], and drug-induced constipation), and assessments of colonic transit and rectal evacuation are necessary to ascertain whether constipation is attributable to normal colonic transit, delayed colonic transit (ie, slow-transit constipation), or a rectal evacuation disorder (with or without delayed colonic transit). Idiopathic slow-transit constipation is a clinical syndrome predominantly affecting women and is characterized by intractable constipation and delayed colonic transit. This syndrome is attributed to disordered colonic motor function and spans a spectrum of variable severity ranging from patients who have relatively mild delays in transit, but are otherwise indistinguishable from irritable bowel syndrome, at one extreme to patients with colonic inertia or chronic megacolon at the other extreme. Most patients are treated with one or more pharmacological agent. A subtotal colectomy is effective and occasionally indicated for patients with medically refractory severe slow-transit constipation, provided that pelvic floor dysfunction has been excluded or treated. Pelvic floor dysfunction can be diagnosed by the clinical features and anorectal testing. Most patients with pelvic floor dysfunction will respond to pelvic floor retraining by biofeedback therapy.     

Prospective study of biofeedback retraining in patients with chronic idiopathic functional constipation

AIM: To determine the efficacy and long-term outcome of biofeedback treatment for chronic idiopathic constipation and to compare the efficacy of two modes of biofeedback(EMG-based and manometry-based biofeedback).METHODS: Fifty consecutive contactable patients included 8 cases of slow transit constipation, 36 cases of anorectic outlet obstruction and 6 cases of mixed constipation. Two modes of biofeedback were used for these 50 patients, 30 of whom had EMG-based biofeedback, and 20 had manometry-based biofeedback. Before treatment, a consultation and physical examination were done for all the patients, related information such as bowel function and gut transit time was documented, psychological test (symptom checklist 90, SCL90)and anorectic physiological test and defecography were applied. After biofeedback management, all the patients were followed up. The Student‘s t-test, chi-squared test and Logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: The period of following up ranged from 12 to 24 months (Median 18 months). 70 % of patients felt that biofeedback was helpful, and 62.5 % of patients with constipation were improved. Clinical manifestations induding straining, abdominal pain, bloating, were relieved, and less oral laxative was used. Spontaneous bowel frequency and psychological state were improved significantly after treatment. Patients with slow and normal transit, and those with and without paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter on straining, benefited equally from the treatment. Thepsychological status rather than anorectal test could pre dictoutcome. The efficacy of the two modes of biofeedback was similar without side effects.CONCLUSION: This study suggests that biofeedback has a long-term effect with no side effects, for the majority of patients with chronic idiopathic constipation unresponsive to traditional treatment. Pelvic floor abnormalities and transit time should not be the selection criteria for treatment.     

Randomized,Controlled Trial Shows Biofeedback to be Superior to Alternative Treatments for Patients with Pelvic Floor Dyssynergia-Type Constipation

Purpose This study was designed to determine whether biofeedback is more effective than diazepam or placebo in a randomized, controlled trial for patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia-type constipation, and whether instrumented biofeedback is necessary for successful training. Methods A total of 117 patients participated in a four-week run-in (education and medical management). The 84 who remained constipated were randomized to biofeedback (n=30), diazepam (n=30), or placebo (n=24). All patients were trained to do pelvic floor muscle exercises to correct pelvic floor dyssynergia during six biweekly one-hour sessions, but only biofeedback patients received electromyography feedback. All other patients received pills one to two hours before attempting defecation. Diary data on cathartic use, straining, incomplete bowel movements, Bristol stool scores, and compliance with homework were reviewed biweekly. Results Before treatment, the groups did not differ on demographic (average age, 50 years; 85 percent females), physiologic or psychologic characteristics, severity of constipation, or expectation of benefit. Biofeedback was superior to diazepam by intention-to-treat analysis (70 vs. 23 percent reported adequate relief of constipation 3 months after treatment, chi-squared=13.1, P<0.001), and also superior to placebo (38 percent successful, chi-squared=5.7, P=0.017). Biofeedback patients had significantly more unassisted bowel movements at follow-up compared with placebo (P=0.005), with a trend favoring biofeedback over diazepam (P=0.067). Biofeedback patients reduced pelvic floor electromyography during straining significantly more than diazepam patients (P<0.001). Conclusions This investigation provides definitive support for the efficacy of biofeedback for pelvic floor dyssynergia and shows that instrumented biofeedback is essential to successful treatment. Support by NIDDK - Grant #R01DK57048, General Clinical Research Center, UNC at Chapel Hill, grant #RR00046, Sandhill? Scientific, Incorporated, Jansen Pharmaceuticals, Milan Pharmaceuticals. Presented at meeting of The American College of Gastroenterology, Honolulu, Hawaii, October 30 to November 2, 2005.     

Biofeedback Treatment of Constipation: A Comparison of Two Methods

Objectives: Our purpose in this study was to determine whether, with balloon feedback treatment, one can obtain results similar to those achieved with electro-myographic (EMG) feedback treatment, in patients with a functional outlet obstruction (spastic pelvic floor syndrome). Methods: In a randomized controlled study, 11 patients received EMG biofeedback and nine patients received balloon feedback. Treatment outcome was assessed by standard EMG during straining, constipation score, and a standard diary with details about complaints. Results: Using change scores (posttreatment score minus pretreatment score), we found significantly greater positive changes for EMG feedback at posttreatment and at follow-up. When criteria for good clinical outcome were used, eight of 11 patients treated with EMG feedback appeared to be improved, against two of nine patients treated with balloon feedback. Type of feedback was the only difference between the groups. Conclusions: Alteration of the EMG pattern leads to lessening of complaints, which means that pelvic floor contraction during straining indeed is the cause of the constipation. The results suggest that EMG feedback is more effective than balloon feedback in treating spastic pelvic floor syndrome.     

Are pelvic floor movements abnormal in disordered defecation?

Pelvic floor movements were assessed by videoproctography in 126 subjects: neuropathic fecal incontinence patients (n=44), chronic constipation patients (n =52), and controls (n=30). A significantly lower pelvic floor position at rest and a more obtuse anorectal angle were found in incontinent patients than in controls (P <0.01). constipated patients showed no significant difference from controls at rest. There was less pelvic floor movement during contraction in incontinent patients than in controls, indicating a flaccid, noncontractile pelvic floor in neuropathic incontinence. Movement during contraction in constipated subjects was also less than in controls. Changes in the pelvic floor position during straining were the same as in controls. These data indicate that the pelvic floor is flaccid and noncontractile in neuropathic fecal incontinence, which supports the concept of a progressive neuropathy involving the sacral outflow. Similar changes are not seen at rest in patients with constipation even though they have a long history of straining.     

Anorectal manometry in children with chronic functional constipation

BACKGROUND: The anorectal manometry is a very utilized and well recognized examination in children with chronic functional constipation. The major manometric findings in these children are: anal hypotonia, anal hypertonia, paradoxal contraction of the external anal sphincter, decreased ability of internal anal sphincter to relax during rectal distension and alterations in rectal contractility, sensibility and compliance. AIMS: To evaluate the anal basal pressure and the relaxation reflex before and after standard treatment for a better understanding of the physiopathologic mechanisms involved in pediatric chronic functional constipation. METHODS: Anorectal manometry was performed before treatment on 20 children with chronic functional constipation aged 4 to 12 years and the results were compared to those obtained after standard treatment, with a good outcome. RESULTS: There was a reduction in anal basal pressure after treatment, but no differences were detected between the anorectal manometries performed before and after treatment in terms of amplitude and duration of relaxation, residual pressure, latency time, or descent and ascent angle. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the anal basal pressure decreased in children recovering from chronic functional constipation, but the standard treatment did not provide all the conditions necessary for the relaxation reflex of constipated children to return to the values described in normal children.     

Outlet obstruction constipation (anismus) managed by biofeedback.

Fifteen subjects presenting with intractable constipation due to obstructive defecation, mean (SEM) duration 8.8 (1.8) years, had the inappropriate contraction and electromyographic changes in the pelvic floor muscles and external and sphincter typical of this condition. An electromyographically derived index was used to grade its severity. A self applied biofeedback device was used to allow electromyographic recording of the abnormal external anal sphincter. The subjects were encouraged to reduce the abnormal electromyographic activity on straining after instruction and training. The procedure was intended as a relearning process in which the non-relaxing activity of the pelvic floor was gradually suppressed. Biofeedback training was maintained on a domiciliary basis for a mean time of 3.1 weeks and resulted in a significant reduction in the anismus index (mean (SEM) 69.9 (7.8)% before biofeedback, mean 14 (3.9)% after biofeedback, p less than 0.01). There was an associated reduction in the time spent straining at stool and in the difficulty of defecation and an increased frequency of defecation. Defecatory video proctograms in six subjects showed improvements in the anorectal angle during straining and evacuation. The clinical benefit to the patients persisted after a mean follow up of 6.2 months.