PURPOSE: The findings of paradoxical puborectalis contraction, rectocele, sigmoidocele, intussusception, and abnormal perineal descent often coexist in constipated patients, as noted by defecographic study. Moreover, some of these conditions are often found in asymptomatic patients. Biofeedback is the treatment of choice for constipated patients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction; the main determinant of successful biofeedback is patient compliance. The significance of coexistent and highly prevalent variants, such as rectocele, intussusception, sigmoidocele, or abnormal perineal descent, on the success of biofeedback is unknown. This review was designed to assess whether these coexisting defecographic findings have any prognostic significance for the outcome of biofeedback. METHODS: From July 1988 to December 1996, 209 constipated patients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction underwent biofeedback treatment after defecography. A total of 173 patients (120 females) who had more than one biofeedback session after defecography formed the study group. Defecographic findings included concomitant rectoceles, 40 (23 percent); evidence of circumferential intussusception, 17 (10 percent); sigmoidocele, 13 (8 percent); and abnormal perineal descent, 109 (63 percent). RESULTS: Whereas 65 patients failed to complete the course of biofeedback therapy, 108 (62.4 percent) patients completed the course of biofeedback and were discharged by the therapist. Within the completed group 59 (55 percent) improved, and 49 (45 percent) patients failed biofeedback therapy. In the improved group 14 (23.7 percent) had a rectocele, 5 (8.5 percent) had intussusception, 5 (8.5 percent) had a sigmoidocele, and 37 (62.7 percent) had abnormal perineal descent. In the failure group 9 (18.4 percent) had a rectocele, 5 (10.2 percent) had an intussusception, 2 (4.1 percent) had a sigmoidocele, and 31 (63.3 percent) had abnormal perineal descent (P = not significant). The success of biofeedback was then analyzed relative to the number of coexisting conditions. Specifically, the outcome in patients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction alone and with one, two, and three other defecographic findings were compared. No statistically significant difference was found among these four groups. CONCLUSION: Although other defecographic findings frequently coexist with paradoxical puborectalis contraction, none of the concomitant findings adversely affected the outcome of biofeedback treatment. Therefore, biofeedback can be recommended to patients with coexistent defecographic findings, with expectation of success in over 50 percent of individuals who complete the course of therapy.
PURPOSE: The findings of paradoxical puborectalis contraction, rectocele, sigmoidocele, intussusception, and abnormal perineal descent often coexist in constipatedpatients, as noted by defecographic study. Moreover, some of these conditions are often found in asymptomatic patients. Biofeedback is the treatment of choice for constipatedpatients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction; the main determinant of successful biofeedback is patient compliance. The significance of coexistent and highly prevalent variants, such as rectocele, intussusception, sigmoidocele, or abnormal perineal descent, on the success of biofeedback is unknown. This review was designed to assess whether these coexisting defecographic findings have any prognostic significance for the outcome of biofeedback. METHODS: From July 1988 to December 1996, 209 constipatedpatients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction underwent biofeedback treatment after defecography. A total of 173 patients (120 females) who had more than one biofeedback session after defecography formed the study group. Defecographic findings included concomitant rectoceles, 40 (23 percent); evidence of circumferential intussusception, 17 (10 percent); sigmoidocele, 13 (8 percent); and abnormal perineal descent, 109 (63 percent). RESULTS: Whereas 65 patients failed to complete the course of biofeedback therapy, 108 (62.4 percent) patients completed the course of biofeedback and were discharged by the therapist. Within the completed group 59 (55 percent) improved, and 49 (45 percent) patients failed biofeedback therapy. In the improved group 14 (23.7 percent) had a rectocele, 5 (8.5 percent) had intussusception, 5 (8.5 percent) had a sigmoidocele, and 37 (62.7 percent) had abnormal perineal descent. In the failure group 9 (18.4 percent) had a rectocele, 5 (10.2 percent) had an intussusception, 2 (4.1 percent) had a sigmoidocele, and 31 (63.3 percent) had abnormal perineal descent (P = not significant). The success of biofeedback was then analyzed relative to the number of coexisting conditions. Specifically, the outcome in patients with paradoxical puborectalis contraction alone and with one, two, and three other defecographic findings were compared. No statistically significant difference was found among these four groups. CONCLUSION: Although other defecographic findings frequently coexist with paradoxical puborectalis contraction, none of the concomitant findings adversely affected the outcome of biofeedback treatment. Therefore, biofeedback can be recommended to patients with coexistent defecographic findings, with expectation of success in over 50 percent of individuals who complete the course of therapy.