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.     

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.     

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 avoids surgery in patients with slow-transit constipation

Biofeedback is established treatment for intractable constipation in patients with an element of pelvic floor dysfunction. In those with intractable slow-transit constipation and normal pelvic floor function, colectomy is usually recommended. We report four patients with isolated slow-transit constipation who benefited from biofeedback and avoided surgery. All four patients were extensively investigated for pelvic floor dysfunction before undergoing a standard biofeedback course of four outpatient sessions. All improved in terms of bowel frequency, laxative use, bloating, straining, and lifestyle. Improvement has been maintained for a median of nine (range, 5–12) months without the requirement for further treatment. Biofeedback represents a safe and inexpensive treatment for these patients and may avoid surgery in a significant proportion.     

Biofeedback avoids surgery in patients with slow-transit constipation: report of four cases

Biofeedback is established treatment for intractable constipation in patients with an element of pelvic floor dysfunction. In those with intractable slow-transit constipation and normal pelvic floor function, colectomy is usually recommended. We report four patients with isolated slow-transit constipation who benefited from biofeedback and avoided surgery. All four patients were extensively investigated for pelvic floor dysfunction before undergoing a standard biofeedback course of four outpatient sessions. All improved in terms of bowel frequency, laxative use, bloating, straining, and lifestyle. Improvement has been maintained for a median of nine (range, 5-12) months without the requirement for further treatment. Biofeedback represents a safe and inexpensive treatment for these patients and may avoid surgery in a significant proportion.     

Pelvic floor dyssynergia: Efficacy of biofeedback training

Background and study aimsParadoxical contraction of the pelvic floor during attempts to defaecate is described as pelvic floor dyssynergia (anismus). It is a behavioural disorder (no associated morphological or neurological abnormalities); consequently, biofeedback training has been recommended as a behavioural therapy for such a disorder. The aim of the present study was to evaluate long-term satisfaction of patients diagnosed with pelvic floor dyssynergia after biofeedback.Patients and methodsSixty patients (35 females and 25 males) with a mean age of 30 ± 12 years and a 4 year duration of constipation were included. Forty-five patients had normal colonic transit and 15 patients had slow colonic transit. History, physical examination and barium enema were done to exclude constipation secondary to organic causes. Colonic and pelvic floor functions (colon-transit time, anorectal manometry, EMG and defaecography) were performed before and after biofeedback treatments. Patients were treated on a weekly basis with an average of (6 ± 2) sessions.ResultsAt the end of sessions, 55 out of 60 patients (91.6%) reported a subjectively overall improvement. Symptoms of dyschezia were reported less frequently after biofeedback. Age and gender were not predictive factors of outcome. No symptoms at initial assessment were predictive for patient’s satisfaction but the only factor of predictive value was the diagnosis of anismus and the motivated patient who wanted to continue the sessions.ConclusionBiofeedback remains a morbidity free, low-cost and effective outpatient therapy for well-motivated patients complaining of functional constipation and diagnosed as pelvic floor dyssynergia.     

Prospective study of biofeedback for treatment of constipation

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate prospectively the results of pelvic floor physiotherapy with the aid of biofeedback in a heterogeneous group of patients with intractable constipation. METHODS: Biofeedback was used to treat 19 patients (age range, 16–78 (median, 63) years) with intractable constipation. Assessment, using visual linear analog scales of symptoms, was performed prospectively by an independent researcher. Biofeedback was performed by a physiotherapist, and patients were required to attend six sessions on an outpatient basis. The cause of constipation was heterogeneous, with no specific disorder being implicated on testing with anal manometry, defecating proctography, and colonic transit time. RESULTS: At six weeks, there was a median 27 percent (range, –8–93 percent) improvement in symptom scores. At six months, there was a median 23 percent (range, –54–64 percent) improvement in symptom scores. These were statistically significant compared with the scores at outset, six weeks ( P =0.0006), and six months ( P =0.012). However, only two (12.5 percent) patients at the six-month follow-up had an improvement of greater than 50 percent in their symptoms. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback is not recommended in the management of constipation.Presented at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific Congress, Melbourne, Australia, May 5 to 10, 1996.No reprints are available.     

Biofeedback Treatment of Constipation

PURPOSE: This review was designed to 1) critically examine the research design used in investigations of biofeedback for pelvic floor dyssynergia, 2) compare the various biofeedback treatment protocols for pelvic floor dyssynergia-type constipation used in this research, 3) identify factors that influence treatment outcome, and 4) identify goals for future biofeedback research for pelvic floor dyssynergia. METHODS: A comprehensive review of both the pediatric and adult research from 1970 to 2002 on "biofeedback for constipation" was conducted using a Medline search in all languages. Only prospective studies including five or more subjects that described the treatment protocol were included. In addition, a meta-analysis of these studies was performed to compare the outcome of different biofeedback protocols for treating constipation. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were reviewed, and sample size, treatment protocol, outcome rates, number of sessions, and etiology are shown in a table. Ten studies using a parallel treatment design were reviewed in detail, including seven that randomized subjects to treatment groups. A meta-analysis (weighted by subjects) was performed to compare the results of two treatment protocols prevalent in the literature. The mean success rate of studies using pressure biofeedback (78 percent) was superior (P = 0.018) to the mean success rate for studies using electromyography biofeedback (70 percent). However, the mean success rates comparing studies using intra-anal electromyography sensors to studies using perianal electromyography sensors were 69 and 72 percent, respectively, indicating no advantages for one type of electromyography protocol over the other (P = 0.428). In addition to the varied protocols and instrumentation used, there also are inconsistencies in the literature regarding the severity and etiology of symptoms, patient selection criteria, and the definition of a successful outcome. Finally, no anatomic, physiologic, or demographic variables were identified that would assist in predicting successful outcome. Having significant psychological symptoms was identified as a factor that may influence treatment outcome, but this requires further study. CONCLUSION: Although most studies report positive results using biofeedback to treat constipation, quality research is lacking. Specific recommendations are made for future investigations to 1) improve experimental design, 2) clearly define outcome measures, 3) identify the etiology and severity of symptoms, 4) determine which treatment protocol and which component of treatment is most effective for different types of subjects, 5) systematically explore the role of psychopathology in this population, 6) use an adequate sample size that allows for meaningful analysis, and 7) include long-term follow-up data.     

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.     

Persistence of chronic constipation in children after biofeedback treatment

We investigated the efficacy of biofeedback treatment and evaluated anorectal factors that might be responsible for persistence of chronic constipation with or without encopresis in a group of 38 children with abnormal contraction of the pelvic floor during straining and persistence of chronic constipation with encopresis after conventional treatment. Nine children were unsuccessful in learning to relax the pelvic floor during straining with biofeedback treatment, and one patient had contraction of the pelvic floor on follow-up despite successful biofeedback treatment; none recovered. Twenty-eight children were able to relax the pelvic floor on follow-up; 14 recovered and 14 did not recover from chronic constipation. Nonrecovered patients who learned to relax the pelvic floor had significantly decreased rectal and anal responsiveness to rectal distension as compared to recovered patients during the initial and follow-up anorectal manometric study. Psychological factors such as social competence and behavior problems did not appear to be responsible for recovery or nonrecovery from chronic constipation and encopresis.This work was supported by grant M01-RR-00069 from the General Clinical Research Center Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health.Results of this study were published in part as an abstract inJournal of Gastrointestinal Motility 1:69, 1989; and presented at the 12th International Symposium on Gastrointestinal Motility, Gmunden, Austria, September 13, 1989.     

One-Year Follow-Up Study on the Effects of Electrogalvanic Stimulation in Chronic Idiopathic Constipation With Pelvic Floor Dyssynergia

BACKGROUND Constipation is a commonly reported symptom, and pelvic floor dyssynergia is frequently documented in constipated patients. The standard therapeutic approach for pelvic floor dyssynergia is biofeedback training, but long-term studies show that a significant percentage of patients remain symptomatic. Alternative or adjunctive therapeutic options are needed.AIMS The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects of electrogalvanic stimulation in patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia and severe constipation, to see whether this treatment may be of some benefit.PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty consecutive constipated patients with clinical and instrumental evidence of pelvic floor dyssynergia entered the study and were treated with a standard high-frequency galvanic electrostimulation protocol. Clinical and instrumental (colon transit time, anorectal manometry, defecography, rectal balloon expulsion) assessment evaluations were performed basally and one year after the treatment.RESULTS Overall, approximately 50 percent of patients showed significant improvement after electrogalvanic treatment, from both a clinical and an instrumental point of view, as shown by the objective measurements obtained through manometry, defecography, and the balloon expulsion test. The benefit was limited to normal transit constipation patients.CONCLUSIONS Because of the relatively simple, painless and effective nature of electrogalvanic stimulation, we concluded that it may represent a useful adjunct to the therapeutic armamentarium for pelvic floor dyssynergia in normal transit constipation.Presented at the IX Italian National Meeting of Digestive Diseases, Florence, Italy, February 23 to 25, 2003.     

Should patients with combined colonic inertia and nonrelaxing pelvic floor undergo subtotal colectomy?

PURPOSE: Treatment of severe constipation caused by combined colonic inertia and nonrelaxing pelvic floor is controversial. This study is designed to evaluate the outcome of preoperative biofeedback and subtotal colectomy for patients with combined colonic inertia and nonrelaxing pelvic floor. METHODS: One hundred six patients who underwent subtotal colectomy for intractable constipation from 1982 through 1995 answered a detailed questionnaire regarding postoperative bowel function, symptoms of abdominal pain and bloating, and degree of satisfaction after the operation. Sixteen of these patients had a combination of colonic inertia and nonrelaxing pelvic floor diagnosed by transit marker study, electromyography, and defecography. These patients completed preoperative biofeedback training. RESULTS: Electromyographic relaxation of pelvic floor musculature was demonstrated after the biofeedback treatment in all patients, but symptoms of difficult evacuation persisted. Postoperatively, seven patients (43 percent) had complete resolution of symptoms of constipation or difficult evacuation. Six patients still complained of incomplete evacuation that was severe in two and unresponsive to postoperative biofeedback. Three patients (18 percent) complained of diarrhea (>5 bowel movements per day) and incontinence of liquid stools (at least one episode a week). Nine patients (56 percent) were satisfied despite persistent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Subtotal colectomy can improve some symptoms in patients with slow transit constipation and nonrelaxing pelvic floor. However, incomplete evacuation persists in a significant number of patients and almost one-half of patients are dissatisfied with their surgery.     

Clinical value of symptom assessment in patients with constipation

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate symptoms and clinical findings in a prospective series of patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: A total of 155 consecutive patients with intractable constipation underwent detailed symptom registration, anorectal manometry, electromyography, colonic transit time measurement, and defecography. RESULTS: All investigations were completed by 134 patients (112 females) with a median age of 52 (range, 17–79) years. Whole-gut transit time was delayed in 55 patients (41 percent), pelvic floor dysfunction was diagnosed in 59 patients (44 percent), but in 35 percent of patients both transit time and pelvic floor function were found to be normal. Three symptoms were shown to have an independent value for the diagnosis of slow-transit constipation. Patients with slow transit more often reported two or fewer stools per week (84vs. 46 percent), laxative dependence (87vs. 44 percent), and a history of constipation since childhood (58vs. 22 percent) than did those with normal transit. Pelvic floor dysfunction was associated with a higher prevalence of backache (53vs. 33 percent) and a lower prevalence of normal stool frequency (19vs. 36 percent), heartburn (12vs. 27 percent), and a history of anorectal surgery (7vs. 21 percent) compared with those with normal pelvic floor function. All four symptoms retained an independent value in the logistic regression analysis for pelvic floor dysfunction. Two symptoms characterized the group with normal transit and normal pelvic floor function: normal stool frequency and alternating diarrhea and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms are good predictors of transit time but poorer predictors of pelvic floor function in patients with constipation.     

Pelvic floor function in patients with clinically complete spinal cord injury and its relation to constipation

PURPOSE: Constipation is a common problem in patients with spinal cord injury. The aim of this study is to analyze the role of pelvic floor dysfunction in the development of constipation. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with clinically complete supraconal spinal cord injury were studied by means of colonic transit time, anal manometry, electrophysiologic testing, and sensory-evoked potentials. RESULTS: Sixteen patients had prolonged total and segmental colonic transit times (Group C), and nine patients had normal colonic transit times (Group NC). Basal pressure and anal pressure during coughing, Valsalva's maneuver, and rectal distention were diminished in all patients, but no differences were observed between Group C and Group NC. Rectal sensation was preserved in eight patients, but this was not related to the absence of constipation. In seven of these eight patients, somatosensory-evoked potentials could be recorded, which indicated an incomplete cord lesion. Synergic relaxation of the pelvic floor during straining was never observed; dyssynergia was seen in ten (7 in Group C and 3 in Group NC;P = not significant) patients. Associated peripheral nerve damage was present in 40 percent of patients but did not predispose these patients to constipation. CONCLUSIONS: Loss of rectal sensation, dyssynergic pelvic floor contraction during straining, associated peripheral nerve damage, and insufficient rise of intra-abdominal pressure could not be held responsible for constipation as a result of spinal cord injury. A prolongation of the colonic transit time is the most important mechanism, and therapy should be directed toward it.Supported by a grant from the Flemish Society of Gastroenterology 1994 and awarded the 1996 Nationaal Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Prize.Presented in part at the annual meetings of the American Gastroenterological Association in New Orleans, Louisiana, May 15 to 18, 1994, and San Francisco, California, May 19 to 22, 1996, and published in abstract form (Gastroenterology 1994; 106:A485 and Gastroenterology 1996;107:A655).     

The role of biofeedback in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders

Biofeedback is a form of treatment that has no adverse effects and can be provided by physician extenders. The therapy relies on patients' ability to learn how to influence their bodily functions through dedicated machinery and teaching. This Review provides a comprehensive overview of all potential therapeutic applications of biofeedback for functional constipation, fecal incontinence, functional anorectal pain, IBS, functional dyspepsia, and aerophagia. Practical clinical applications of biofeedback therapy supported by randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are limited to fecal incontinence and dyssynergic defecation. For fecal incontinence, RCTs suggest that biofeedback combining strength training and sensory discrimination training is effective in approximately 75% of patients and is more effective than placebo. However, verbal feedback provided by a therapist during extended digital examination may be equally effective, and children whose fecal incontinence is associated with constipation plus fecal impaction do no better with biofeedback than medical management. For dyssynergic defecation, RCTs show that biofeedback combining pelvic floor muscle relaxation training, practice in defecating a water-filled balloon, and instruction in effective straining is effective in approximately 70% of patients who have failed to respond to laxative treatment. For both incontinence and dyssynergic defecation, the benefits of biofeedback last at least 12 months.     

Biofeedback therapy for rectal intussusception

Background Surgery for isolated internal rectal intussusception is controversial due to high morbidity. Therefore, there is interest in other forms of treatment that are safe and effective. The aim of this study was to determine outcome and identify predictors for success of biofeedback therapy in patients with rectal intussusception. Methods We retrospectively evaluated the results of electromyography (EMG)–based biofeedback in 34 patients with rectal intussusception without any other major pelvic floor or colonic physiologic disorder. Results A total of 34 patients (7 men) had undergone at least 2 biofeedback sessions. The patients had a mean age of 68.5 years (SD=11.4 years). In the 27 patients with constipation, the frequency of weekly spontaneous bowel movements (mean±SD) was 2.0±6.8 before and 4.1±4.6 after biofeedback (p<0.05). The frequency of weekly assisted bowel movements decreased from 3.8±3.5 before to 1.5±2.2 after therapy (p<0.005). The number of patients who experienced incomplete evacuation decreased from 17 (63%) to 9 (33%) (p<0.05). Thirty–three percent of patients had complete resolution of the symptoms, 19% had partial improvement, and 48% had no improvement. Patients with constipation lasting less than nine years had a 78% success rate vs. 13% in patients who were consti– pated more than 9 years (p<0.01). In seven patients with incontinence, the frequency of daily incontinence episodes decreased from 1.0±0.7 before to 0.07±0.06 after biofeedback (p<0.05). The fecal incontinence score decreased from 13.1±4.2 before to 4.6±3.6 after treatment (p<0.005). Two patients (29%) were completely continent following biofeedback, 2 had partial improvement, and 3 (43%) had no significant improvement. There was no mortality in either group. Conclusions Biofeedback is a safe and effective treatment option for constipation and fecal incontinence due to rectal intussusception in patients who are willing to complete the course of treatment. Long–standing constipation is less effectively cured by biofeedback.     

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.     

补中益气丸联合生物反馈技术治疗气虚型便秘的临床研究

目的 观察补中益气丸联合生物反馈技术治疗气虚型便秘的临床疗效. 方法 将160例患者随机分为4组,每组40例.治疗组予以补中益气丸联合生物反馈技术治疗,对照组分别予以补中益气丸、生物反馈技术、莫沙比利治疗,观测患者治疗前后的中医症状积分、行为方式积分及盆底肌表面肌电峰值,并评价疗效.结果 4组治疗前后的中医症状积分、行为方式积分、盆底肌表面肌电峰值比较的差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).治疗组与对照组相比差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).改善盆底肌表面肌电方面,治疗组峰值提高率最高,且与其他组相比有明显差异. 结论 补中益气丸联合生物反馈技术可改善老年气虚型便秘患者中医症状、行为方式及盆底肌表面肌电峰值,临床疗效确切.     

Effects of Biofeedback Therapy on Anorectal Function in Obstructive Defecation

Biofeedback therapy improves symptoms inpatients with constipation and obstructive defecation.Whether it also improves anorectal function is unclear.Our purpose was to investigate prospectively the effects of biofeedback therapy on subjective andobjective parameters of anorectal function in 25consecutive patients with obstructive defecation.Biofeedback therapy consisted of pelvic floor relaxationexercises (phase I) and neuromuscular conditioning ofrectal sensation and rectoanal coordination, with asolid state manometry system and simulated defecationmaneuvers (phase II). The number of sessions wascustomized for each patient. Clinical improvement wasassessed from the changes in anorectal manometry,balloon (50 cc) expulsion test, and the symptom andstool diaries. The number of therapy sessions varied[mean (range) = 6 (2-10)]. After therapy, whenstraining as if to defecate, the percentage analrelaxation, intrarectal pressure, and defecation indexincreased (P < 0.001). The balloon expulsion time,laxative consumption, and straining effort decreased (P< 0.001). Before therapy, 16/25 (64%) patients hadimpaired rectal sensation, and after therapy thisimproved (P < 0.001). After therapy, 15/25 (60%) patients reported 75% satisfaction with bowelhabit and 8/25 (32%) reported 50% satisfaction (P< 0.001); 15/16 (94%) patients discontinued digitaldisimpaction. Biofeedback therapy not only improves subjective but also objective parameters ofanorectal function in at least 76% of patients byrectifying the underlying pathophysiologicdisturbance(s). Sensory conditioning and customizing thenumber of sessions may offer additionalbenefits.